(a) Someone decides to change their accent. It's okay for other people to comment on it negatively. (b) Someone decides to change their appearance by having tattoos and piercings. It's not okay for other people to comment on it negatively.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
On the assumption that the ‘they’ that will be really fucked is Scotland, please try to avoid the suggestion of tumescence at the prospect, it’s most unseemly.
Anyway after the grotesquerie that is the UK, who wouldn’t want to rejoin a normy country.
So you'd take Scotland joining Norway, over remaining in the UK?
Well written but Spanish colonists surely in 1832? There was no Argentina then.
The Argentinians may be descendents of Spanish colonists just like the Falkland Islanders are descendents of British colonists, but I don't see why one form of colonialism should trump another, just because the Spanish sent more over to a bigger land. The Falkland Islanders have every bit as much legitimacy to be where they were born as the Argentinians do to be where they were born.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
No, odd does not mean bad. Course not. Tons of examples of benign oddities. Greta Green? Say no more. But it doesn't mean good either and here we're talking about a long running dispute over the sovereignty of a territory in the South Pacific. A war over it too. So it's not like some endearingly eccentric state of affairs. I'm not overly agitated about it, not at all, but I would not set my face against a compromise being found to resolve the matter.
South Atlantic.
Maybe he's confused with the Pitcairns, which were actually discovered by Spain (well, a Portuguese explorer working for Spain) 160 years before a Brit found them
The Falklands were French before they were British, and passed on by the French to the Spanish. Our claim arises from an invasion in 1833.
The islands are a boring edge case. The most interesting thing about the whole thing is the ad hoc promotion of self-determination to an Immutable Tory Truth, when it started life with Marx and then got adopted by the USA as a way of trolling the British out of their empire.
There was a prior claim from a sighting in 1765, accompanied by a settlement which was abandoned in 1771.
Indeed, the Argentine colonists present in 1832 (not 1833, although as the British expedition reached the Falklands only at the end of December and negotiations continued until the 2nd January I can see why you would think that) had made a point of informing the British consul in Buenos Aires that they were going to set up a colony, precisely because they were aware of Britain’s claim.
A final irony arises from the fact that most of the settlers when the Royal Navy arrived were in fact British by nationality anyway, including Vernet’s deputy Matthew Brisbane.
Well written but Spanish colonists surely in 1832? There was no Argentina then.
The Argentinians may be descendents of Spanish colonists just like the Falkland Islanders are descendents of British colonists, but I don't see why one form of colonialism should trump another, just because the Spanish sent more over to a bigger land. The Falkland Islanders have every bit as much legitimacy to be where they were born as the Argentinians do to be where they were born.
Argentina was founded by a revolution in 1810, ratified in 1816. So yes, it was Argentina (although officially it was called the United Provinces of the River Plate until 1831).
Which complicates it further, of course, as any claim Argentina has derives from the Islands being Spanish and breaking away at the same time, but as they were uninhabited that was unclear.
In actuality or possible reporting lag? Would make sense though, GP surgeries main route and ours is certainly not routinely open on Sundays which, if the problem, should be addressed.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
Small towns are interesting - both good and bad. The one where people address you by name, having never previously met you, can startle.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
Yes, I think thats about right.
My gut feeling is that the Germans would have had a hard time in the extremities of the country - Westcountry, Wales and the Welsh Marches, rural NE/NW and Scotland, where much of the resistance would have had huge advantages over a mechanised army.
Interesting counterfactual is what would have happened to WSC. I expect he would have fled to Ireland and then Canada along with the royals, and formed a Govt in exile from there. And a Vichy style govt (led by Halifax?) would have formerly surrendered to Hitler/
Typical of Tories and Royals, save themselves/fill their pockets first and F*** the plebs.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
In actuality or possible reporting lag? Would make sense though, GP surgeries main route and ours is certainly not routinely open on Sundays which, if the problem, should be addressed.
It is possible there is a reporting lag. Do we know if the computer system that was supposed to be used for this is now working? Or are they in some places still noting down things on bits of paper and that be manually recorded on a system?
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
It must be ever so tiring being this anger all the time.
We are likely to see weekend effects with the vaccine numbers, as we do with the testing numbers.
Yesterday was Sunday, or as the French call it, "Aujord'hui". Now it's monday, or "Toujours demain" as it's known with the French vaccination program.
We did last week.... While they were just starting daily reporting, the number was well down on what had been reported to have been achieved at the end of the previous week.
People even suggested Ministers were lying, about the previous week, IIRC.
Police slap 14 Scottish sea food truckers with £200 Covid fines for making 'unnecessary journeys'..as they descend on No10 after vowing to dump tons of rotting fish on PM's doorstep over Brexit border chaos
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
Small towns are interesting - both good and bad. The one where people address you by name, having never previously met you, can startle.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
Yes, I think thats about right.
My gut feeling is that the Germans would have had a hard time in the extremities of the country - Westcountry, Wales and the Welsh Marches, rural NE/NW and Scotland, where much of the resistance would have had huge advantages over a mechanised army.
Interesting counterfactual is what would have happened to WSC. I expect he would have fled to Ireland and then Canada along with the royals, and formed a Govt in exile from there. And a Vichy style govt (led by Halifax?) would have formerly surrendered to Hitler/
Typical of Tories and Royals, save themselves/fill their pockets first and F*** the plebs.
Churchill said on a couple of occasions that he, personally, would stay and fight.
On the one hand, a politician talking. On the other Churchill - a man who went out of his way in the early part of his life to find all the wars going....
Police slap 14 Scottish sea food truckers with £200 Covid fines for making 'unnecessary journeys'..as they descend on No10 after vowing to dump tons of rotting fish on PM's doorstep over Brexit border chaos
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
It must be ever so tiring being this anger all the time.
It's very disappointing to see Scotland accepting the tainted British vaccine innstead of waiting in line like the rest of Europe for the pure EU vaccine. utterly without principle.
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
Why is it ridiculous?
They're not running the sites, they're setting them up then handing them to the NHS. They can set up one site, hand it over, then set up another and so on. Its not like every soldier would go to one site, do it by themselves, then go home and never return to do anything else now is it?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
You keep saying Britain rules the Falklands. How does Britain "rule" the Falkland Islands?
The Falkland Islanders rule themselves. They have their own elected government, their own governor, their own elected Parliament, their own courts, their own finance, their own taxes, their own leader.
Does Britain rule Australia in your eyes?
I'd say that on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 = no influence and 100 = total domination, the Falklands would be much closer to 100 than Australia. Close enough to justify the word "rule"? Yes, I think so.
But you're nitpicking and also going off the point.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
You keep saying Britain rules the Falklands. How does Britain "rule" the Falkland Islands?
The Falkland Islanders rule themselves. They have their own elected government, their own governor, their own elected Parliament, their own courts, their own finance, their own taxes, their own leader.
Does Britain rule Australia in your eyes?
I'd say that on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 = no influence and 100 = total domination, the Falklands would be much closer to 100 than Australia. Close enough to justify the word "rule"? Yes, I think so.
But you're nitpicking and also going off the point.
Go on then defend that statement. What was the last rule imposed on the Falkland Islanders against their wishes, showing that they were totally dominated.
Can you name a single occassion that has ever happened, or are you making up codswallop and the freely and democratically elected government is actually in charge?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
No I am talking about my home and when the plumber comes I kill him.
Go on then defend that statement. What was the last rule imposed on the Falkland Islanders against their wishes, showing that they were totally dominated.
Can you name a single occassion that has ever happened, or are you making up codswallop and the freely and democratically elected government is actually in charge?
The closest we came to that was Ridley's secret talks with Argentina to cede the Falklands in around 1980. When he visited the Falklands just after they told him to eff off.
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
It must be ever so tiring being this anger all the time.
I’m sure, if Scotland doesn’t want the Sqaddies and their damn colonial vaccine sites, they could always head south and set up a few more in England instead?
In actuality or possible reporting lag? Would make sense though, GP surgeries main route and ours is certainly not routinely open on Sundays which, if the problem, should be addressed.
It is possible there is a reporting lag. Do we know if the computer system that was supposed to be used for this is now working? Or are they in some places still noting down things on bits of paper and that be manually recorded on a system?
It's probable our numbers later on in the week slightly overstate the numbers done on that day with Sunday and Monday's numbers understating. We're well used to the weekend effect with deaths and cases.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I personally make a UDI? Or the village or county I live in? There's nothing positively wrong with self-determination, but you are just over-affirming a lot of historical accidents in making it a nation based thing. Why do you attribute rights to the Isle of Man which you deny to the Isle of Wight? Or if you don't, why do you deny the same rights to any arbitrary inland bit of the UK which is the size and pop of the IoW? Do you affirm the rights of all the African nations, bearing in mind that many of them are artificial constructs defined by lines drawn on a map by balls-out white racists? Self-determination is sort of OK, usually, but there is no need to get so excited about it.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
South of Scotland seceding from the rest of the country not an option, but the cases of Orkney and Shetland are much more interesting because of their distinct constitutional history and island status. There is some interest, particularly in Shetland, in looking at options in the event of Scottish independence, not least as both island groups would almost certainly vote against Indy. They have never elected SNP representatives in either Parliament and are strongly Unionist.
Yep. I wasn't suggesting a realistic possibility, but it's not at all clear why it isn't realistic. As you say though the northern Isles are certainly viable candidates to follow their own path. Could be some very odd outcomes in all this.
They are not in any way viable, standalone they have little, get 12 miles of water and have f**K all else. They could not even pay for the ferries to bring them food.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I personally make a UDI? Or the village or county I live in? There's nothing positively wrong with self-determination, but you are just over-affirming a lot of historical accidents in making it a nation based thing. Why do you attribute rights to the Isle of Man which you deny to the Isle of Wight? Or if you don't, why do you deny the same rights to any arbitrary inland bit of the UK which is the size and pop of the IoW? Do you affirm the rights of all the African nations, bearing in mind that many of them are artificial constructs defined by lines drawn on a map by balls-out white racists? Self-determination is sort of OK, usually, but there is no need to get so excited about it.
Perhaps a demos has the right, but not the individual?
Are you still talking about the bloody Falklands? Look, this one is simple. In 2021 would it be acceptable to go off round the world claiming and settling places that are a complex 1 x Vulcan / 11 x Victors flight away? No. But we aren't doing it now, we did it centuries ago.
If the people of the Falklands consider themselves British by means of Crown ownership then they are British. Same with Gibraltar. St Helena. etc etc. Same with Spaniards in Ceuta. The French on Reunion. And all the other mad colonies around the world which are hardly exclusively a British colonial issue.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
No I am talking about my home and when the plumber comes I kill him.
Well then we exercise our right to self-determination via the ballot box. If TOPPINGONIA independence wins an election then yes it would be appropriate.
But you'd need for that to be done with ballots not bullets and you'd need the plumber to be aware it has been done first.
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
It must be ever so tiring being this anger all the time.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
On the assumption that the ‘they’ that will be really fucked is Scotland, please try to avoid the suggestion of tumescence at the prospect, it’s most unseemly.
Anyway after the grotesquerie that is the UK, who wouldn’t want to rejoin a normy country.
So you'd take Scotland joining Norway, over remaining in the UK?
Interesting.
Well given Norway is about $1T in the black
All for the cost of a decent lunch.....
In the early Sixties, a group used to meet from time to time, to discuss the esoteric matter of the exact boundary between the UK and Norway. Each side had maps and their own entrenched positions.
Then one day, after a particularly good lunch, the British negotiators accepted the Norwegian proposal.
A proposal that would later be shown to include a huge amount of the subsequent Norwegian oil reserves, including Statfjord....
"a trans-median field crossing the Norwegian and UK North Sea Boundary with approximately 15% being in the UK Continental Shelf waters. At peak production it produced over 700,000 barrels of oil per day."
Snorre....
"reserves consist of 1.6 billion barrels of oil, 240 billion cubic feet of natural gas, 4.8 million tons of natural gas liquids."
and Gullfaks.....
"initial recoverable reserve is 2.1 billion barrels and reached peak production in 2001 at 180,000 barrels per day".
I was told this in 1988 - by somebody who was at that lunch.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
South of Scotland seceding from the rest of the country not an option, but the cases of Orkney and Shetland are much more interesting because of their distinct constitutional history and island status. There is some interest, particularly in Shetland, in looking at options in the event of Scottish independence, not least as both island groups would almost certainly vote against Indy. They have never elected SNP representatives in either Parliament and are strongly Unionist.
Yep. I wasn't suggesting a realistic possibility, but it's not at all clear why it isn't realistic. As you say though the northern Isles are certainly viable candidates to follow their own path. Could be some very odd outcomes in all this.
They are not in any way viable, standalone they have little, get 12 miles of water and have f**K all else. They could not even pay for the ferries to bring them food.
Are you saying they're too poor, too wee and too stupid?
By the way, if you want to be wound up on the NEW THREAD I make a link between Salmond and Trump.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
That can't be there in the formulation as an option (iii) because you can think that PLUS (i) or (ii).
What I'm doing is setting out a way to distinguish between Brits who feel good about our colonial past and those who don't.
You're not helping. You're cluttering things up with an interesting but separate matter.
I've heard of the Thin Red Line, but that's ridiculous!
Only a halfwitted nutter could think that it is worth tweeting that as something to be proud of. Shows how thick the Tories in Scotland really are, we pay a fortune for MOD and best they can do is give 100 squaddies, bit like their £30 chum's food parcels. HYFUD and DROSS are cheeks of the same arse.
It must be ever so tiring being this anger all the time.
I’m sure, if Scotland doesn’t want the Sqaddies and their damn colonial vaccine sites, they could always head south and set up a few more in England instead?
Typical arsehole, we would like all our Scottish squaddies helping , not a token few.
There might be a bit of reporting lag there, but still absolutely terrible.
One problem is they are keeping 50% of vaccines back so they can guarantee a 2nd vaccine in 3 weeks. Merkel, as ever, is showing very little leadership.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
No I am talking about my home and when the plumber comes I kill him.
Well then we exercise our right to self-determination via the ballot box. If TOPPINGONIA independence wins an election then yes it would be appropriate.
But you'd need for that to be done with ballots not bullets and you'd need the plumber to be aware it has been done first.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
No I am talking about my home and when the plumber comes I kill him.
Well then we exercise our right to self-determination via the ballot box. If TOPPINGONIA independence wins an election then yes it would be appropriate.
But you'd need for that to be done with ballots not bullets and you'd need the plumber to be aware it has been done first.
Says who?
It's my country I'll do what I want.
If you murder someone from your neighbouring country, you should probably expect to be invaded and killed.
Are you still talking about the bloody Falklands? Look, this one is simple. In 2021 would it be acceptable to go off round the world claiming and settling places that are a complex 1 x Vulcan / 11 x Victors flight away? No. But we aren't doing it now, we did it centuries ago.
If the people of the Falklands consider themselves British by means of Crown ownership then they are British. Same with Gibraltar. St Helena. etc etc. Same with Spaniards in Ceuta. The French on Reunion. And all the other mad colonies around the world which are hardly exclusively a British colonial issue.
Are you still talking about the bloody Falklands? Look, this one is simple. In 2021 would it be acceptable to go off round the world claiming and settling places that are a complex 1 x Vulcan / 11 x Victors flight away? No. But we aren't doing it now, we did it centuries ago.
If the people of the Falklands consider themselves British by means of Crown ownership then they are British. Same with Gibraltar. St Helena. etc etc. Same with Spaniards in Ceuta. The French on Reunion. And all the other mad colonies around the world which are hardly exclusively a British colonial issue.
How long does an act of conquest or aggression have to be sustained before it becomes accepted as legitimate?Had the Nazi conquests of World War 2 remained in German hands to the present day would we obliged to accept them as now being legitimately under German dominion? Can the Aboriginies reasonably argue that their land continues to be occupied by the descendants of earlier aggressors?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I think, ironically, that the feeling you describe is part of the colonial problem. The way to deal with the legacy of colonialism is to let the people living in a place decide what to next.
After all, telling them what to do, with the threat of force (behind all government actions) from X thousand miles away - what is that, but more colonialism?
Here's chance for me to use an old chestnut and although I hate old chestnuts I think just this once I will - it's more complicated than that.
If you've colonized a place and filled it with people from the Mothership, or you've so dominated that it has become a grand scale example of Stockholm Syndrome, then I don't think you can just say, "Ok, there's only one thing that counts here and that is what flag the majority want to be under." Although this has to be high in the mix obviously.
No it is not. It is history.
The only thing that matters is self-determination. Nothing else matters.
Should the Argentinians be repatriated back to Spain? Should descendents of slaves be repatriated back to Africa?
Either you believe in self-determination or you do not. Do you?
I look favourably on it but I don't think I believe in anything to the extent that "nothing else matters". That sounds slightly deranged to my ear.
If self determination sounds deranged then I would suggest you are the one who needs to examine their value system.
Not that bit, the "nothing else matters" bit.
Like, a bloke says he believes in accessible architecture. Fine. More than fine. But if he says, "I believe in accessible architecture and nothing else matters."
Then I'm getting a tad nervous and feigning a call of nature.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I think, ironically, that the feeling you describe is part of the colonial problem. The way to deal with the legacy of colonialism is to let the people living in a place decide what to next.
After all, telling them what to do, with the threat of force (behind all government actions) from X thousand miles away - what is that, but more colonialism?
Here's chance for me to use an old chestnut and although I hate old chestnuts I think just this once I will - it's more complicated than that.
If you've colonized a place and filled it with people from the Mothership, or you've so dominated that it has become a grand scale example of Stockholm Syndrome, then I don't think you can just say, "Ok, there's only one thing that counts here and that is what flag the majority want to be under." Although this has to be high in the mix obviously.
No it is not. It is history.
The only thing that matters is self-determination. Nothing else matters.
Should the Argentinians be repatriated back to Spain? Should descendents of slaves be repatriated back to Africa?
Either you believe in self-determination or you do not. Do you?
I look favourably on it but I don't think I believe in anything to the extent that "nothing else matters". That sounds slightly deranged to my ear.
How is self-determination ever deranged?
Either you are free or you are not. It is the only thing that matters. What trumps self-determination?
Everything else in life flows from people's choices under self-determination, take that away and you are heading into the realms of slavery.
Far too wild-eyed and dogmatic for my taste. It would be a bit rum for (say) Pimlico to declare UDI even if the majority of residents favoured it. If that referendum were to take place next week and "indy" won it, there would be many questions other than the result of the vote to be considered in assessing how to move forward.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
I'm not talking about the Islanders wanting to stay British - nothing odd about that - I'm talking about the notion of British rule over places on the other side of the globe. To me this is odd and I find it odd when others don't share that feeling - and potentially telling of what they feel about Britain and Britishness. And when I say "telling" btw, I don't imply something bad lurking there. Although there might be. Further probing would be required.
There are many and varied reasons - almost none of them associated with any old feelings about Empire - why countries might think it good to retain control of far flung places. One of the most obvious for me comes in the form of environmental management. Britain is now responsible for the largest marine protected zone in the world in the Indian Ocean and is responsible for a total of 6.8 million Km2 of marine protected zones around the world.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the macro geopolitics. I'm talking about how a British person, a normal British person, feels when they consider the notion of British rule over far flung places. Do they feel it is (i) a hangover from the colonial past that feels odd and a bit wrong in 2021, or (ii) just the normal way of things, Britain being Britain, and woe betide anybody who suggests otherwise?
Or (iii) up to the people living in those places to determine for themselves?
Are we talking the Falklands here, or Cornwall or Primrose Hill?
All of the above.
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
So can I declare self determination from the UK and its laws, decree that murder is legal in TOPPINGONIA and kill someone?
I think you should have the right to commit suicide, yes.
No I am talking about my home and when the plumber comes I kill him.
Well then we exercise our right to self-determination via the ballot box. If TOPPINGONIA independence wins an election then yes it would be appropriate.
But you'd need for that to be done with ballots not bullets and you'd need the plumber to be aware it has been done first.
Says who?
It's my country I'll do what I want.
If you murder someone from your neighbouring country, you should probably expect to be invaded and killed.
Good luck to them. I am in my country and all is good as far as I'm concerned. I am ready to repulse invaders.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
On the assumption that the ‘they’ that will be really fucked is Scotland, please try to avoid the suggestion of tumescence at the prospect, it’s most unseemly.
Anyway after the grotesquerie that is the UK, who wouldn’t want to rejoin a normy country.
So you'd take Scotland joining Norway, over remaining in the UK?
Interesting.
The proposal is O & S rejoin Norway. They have a fairly solid historical case (you don't have to be a neo Thatcherite self-determinationist to see that giving away countries as dowries is not really on) and there's a lot of sense in becoming part of Norway from the territorial waters POV - gets you round being an exclave.
No, it most certainly is not. Much more likely is the kind of relationship the Channel Isles or Isle of Man have with UK.
< Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
There's nothing particularly unusual about states having ownership of land some way from main territory. You might as well ask if it is unusual that any state is the shape it is, since they have certainly not always been fixed and as we know many modern states have rather peculiar borders that have caused much difficulty over the years. Turkey is predominantly Asia Minor, should the land over the Bosphorous be removed from it? What, don't you think it odd that 95% of the country is on one continent and 5% on another?
You seem fixated on it being 'odd' to have some islands a long way away under the aegis of the British state, but it really isn't that odd to have far flung territories.
What does how it looks or feels matter? What matters in the modern age is what people think, especially settled, historical populations.
Everything about political geography is odd so nothing is? I suppose you could view things this way. But for me this not a binary matter of "odd" versus "not at all odd". So, your example, I don't find the shape of Turkey to be as odd as a British island in the South Pacific. This could be because I'm British not Turkish but I don't think so. As I said, I think it works the other way. You're more likely to be blinded to strange aspects of your own country.
As I have already pointed out you really do need to get your geography right if you are going to indulge in these discussions. The islands are in the South Atlantic, not the South Pacific.
Must have the musical on the brain.
But it just reinforces what I'm saying. It's so far away I don't even know where it is.
< Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
There's nothing particularly unusual about states having ownership of land some way from main territory. You might as well ask if it is unusual that any state is the shape it is, since they have certainly not always been fixed and as we know many modern states have rather peculiar borders that have caused much difficulty over the years. Turkey is predominantly Asia Minor, should the land over the Bosphorous be removed from it? What, don't you think it odd that 95% of the country is on one continent and 5% on another?
You seem fixated on it being 'odd' to have some islands a long way away under the aegis of the British state, but it really isn't that odd to have far flung territories.
What does how it looks or feels matter? What matters in the modern age is what people think, especially settled, historical populations.
Everything about political geography is odd so nothing is? I suppose you could view things this way. But for me this not a binary matter of "odd" versus "not at all odd". So, for example, your example, I don't find the shape of Turkey to be as odd as a British island in the South Pacific. This could be that I'm British not Turkish but I don't think so. As I said, I think it works the other way. You're more likely to be blinded to strange aspects of your own country.
Why do you keep calling it "a British island" or "British rule" rather than a self-governing, self-ruling island that happens to pool some sovereignty because it wants to do so with Britain?
They have their own Parliament and their own democracy. They rule themselves. When will you stop ignoring that and accept that?
Do you think Britain still rules Australia?
"Rule" works here, as previously explained. Australia not a good comparison.
And btw the Falklands are NOT in the South Pacific. They're in the South Atlantic.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
On the assumption that the ‘they’ that will be really fucked is Scotland, please try to avoid the suggestion of tumescence at the prospect, it’s most unseemly.
Anyway after the grotesquerie that is the UK, who wouldn’t want to rejoin a normy country.
So you'd take Scotland joining Norway, over remaining in the UK?
Interesting.
Half an Oil Fund is better than none, especially if it’s the world’s biggest.
Comments
(a) Someone decides to change their accent. It's okay for other people to comment on it negatively.
(b) Someone decides to change their appearance by having tattoos and piercings. It's not okay for other people to comment on it negatively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Confederation
Which complicates it further, of course, as any claim Argentina has derives from the Islands being Spanish and breaking away at the same time, but as they were uninhabited that was unclear.
We are likely to see weekend effects with the vaccine numbers, as we do with the testing numbers.
We can only hope that it's weekend reporting lag and beget a bumper crop tomorrow...
Everyone on the planet should have self-determination.
Now it's monday, or "Toujours demain" as it's known with the French vaccination program.
People even suggested Ministers were lying, about the previous week, IIRC.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9159353/Scottish-seafood-trucks-descend-Downing-Street.html
On the one hand, a politician talking. On the other Churchill - a man who went out of his way in the early part of his life to find all the wars going....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9159697/Dropped-ball-Matt-Hoodie-wearing-Health-Secretary-plays-rugby-sons.html
They're not running the sites, they're setting them up then handing them to the NHS. They can set up one site, hand it over, then set up another and so on. Its not like every soldier would go to one site, do it by themselves, then go home and never return to do anything else now is it?
But you're nitpicking and also going off the point.
Can you name a single occassion that has ever happened, or are you making up codswallop and the freely and democratically elected government is actually in charge?
been invaded by a junta in the name of decolonisation.
If the people of the Falklands consider themselves British by means of Crown ownership then they are British. Same with Gibraltar. St Helena. etc etc. Same with Spaniards in Ceuta. The French on Reunion. And all the other mad colonies around the world which are hardly exclusively a British colonial issue.
But you'd need for that to be done with ballots not bullets and you'd need the plumber to be aware it has been done first.
In the early Sixties, a group used to meet from time to time, to discuss the esoteric matter of the exact boundary between the UK and Norway. Each side had maps and their own entrenched positions.
Then one day, after a particularly good lunch, the British negotiators accepted the Norwegian proposal.
A proposal that would later be shown to include a huge amount of the subsequent Norwegian oil reserves, including Statfjord....
"a trans-median field crossing the Norwegian and UK North Sea Boundary with approximately 15% being in the UK Continental Shelf waters. At peak production it produced over 700,000 barrels of oil per day."
Snorre....
"reserves consist of 1.6 billion barrels of oil, 240 billion cubic feet of natural gas, 4.8 million tons of natural gas liquids."
and Gullfaks.....
"initial recoverable reserve is 2.1 billion barrels and reached peak production in 2001 at 180,000 barrels per day".
I was told this in 1988 - by somebody who was at that lunch.
By the way, if you want to be wound up on the NEW THREAD I make a link between Salmond and Trump.
What I'm doing is setting out a way to distinguish between Brits who feel good about our colonial past and those who don't.
You're not helping. You're cluttering things up with an interesting but separate matter.
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Daten/Impfquoten-Tab.html
There might be a bit of reporting lag there, but still absolutely terrible.
One problem is they are keeping 50% of vaccines back so they can guarantee a 2nd vaccine in 3 weeks. Merkel, as ever, is showing very little leadership.
It's my country I'll do what I want.
Like, a bloke says he believes in accessible architecture. Fine. More than fine. But if he says, "I believe in accessible architecture and nothing else matters."
Then I'm getting a tad nervous and feigning a call of nature.
But it just reinforces what I'm saying. It's so far away I don't even know where it is.
And btw the Falklands are NOT in the South Pacific. They're in the South Atlantic.
Let's get that cleared up.