Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The Falklands
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 26th September 2005
Will the Falkland Islanders refuse to tolerate London plundering their oil reserves, or will they act like the brain dead Scots. Your thoughts gentlemen. -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 26th September 2005
Unless they have forgotten how Britain fought Argentina over the islands, I'd say they'll be happy to hand over any resources.
Speaking as one of the alleged brain dead, documents have recently come to light which allegedly show how the SNP's big claim in the early 70's that the oil was Scotland's, was glossed over by the Uk government which lied about the financial impact of the oil finds, thus making sure that the SNP had insufficient support for their push for independence.
Can you imagine what would happen nowadays if the UK government lied about something just to get its on way? Ah, that rings a bell. -
Message 3
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 26th September 2005
Thankyou Tony, An excellent post as usual. Lang may yir lum reek.
-
Message 4
Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Monday, 26th September 2005
"Argentina's relations with England have been strained since the Falkland/Malvinas War of 1982. Tensions rose again when England unilaterally extended its exclusive fishing zone around the Falkland/Malvinas during July 1994. England maintained that it was protecting the illex squid from over-exploitation. Argentina, which competes with England and Asian fishermen for squid, charged that the English were driven by political motivations. The two nations have silently competed to strengthen their overlapping claims to the Antarctic continent. Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas and other islands in the area (such as South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) would reinforce their claims to Antarctica."
"The British Geological Survey announced a 200-mile oil exploration zone around the islands in 1993, and early seismic surveys suggest substantial reserves capable of producing 500,000 barrels per day; to date no exploitable site has been identified. An agreement between Argentina and the UK in 1995 seeks to defuse licensing and sovereignty conflicts."
"In 1987 the government began selling fishing licenses to foreign trawlers operating within the Falklands exclusive fishing zone. These license fees total more than $40 million per year." -
Message 5
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Monday, 26th September 2005
The Falklanders wanted to remain British when they were invaded by Argentina, so I suppose that they'll have to put up with us.
-
Message 6
Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Monday, 26th September 2005
$40 million per year in fishing rights and possible oil might give a clue in why the British keep an interest.
Cheers Nick -
Message 7
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Yasu Nick, I think you have run all the malakis off.
-
Message 8
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Expat,
What exactly do you expect them to do? Rebel, rise up and declare independence? I'm sorry but there seems no point to this argument. The islanders have always declared that they are British, and wish to remain so. Why should any future economic growth there change this? Any economic growth for the Islanders will benefit them, and the country they chose to remain a part of. Where exactly is this Brit-hating coming from here? Have you been overdosing on Mel Gibson movies again?
Incidentally, on your other thread regarding re-imbursement for British Imperialism-that is about as likely, reasonable and realistic as the US compensating the Native population for the genocide the US committed against them in the 19th Century, and returning their land. The US is not exactly guilt-free on the "Imperialist oppression" front you know.
Or maybe the US will invade to get its hands on some more oil......
DL -
Message 9
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
"Have you been overdosing on Mel Gibson movies again?"
I'm busted. I watched Braveheart, ran out and bought a kilt, and started munching on a haggis sandwich.
"the US compensating the Native population for the genocide the US committed against them in the 19th Century,"
We will be right behind the Brits when they do the same for the 13 colonies.
"and returning their land."
Who gave it to them.
"Or maybe the US will invade to get its hands on some more oil......"
We can't do that, ya'll beat us to it.
You have some excellent points as usual DL , I never have claimed we are innocent. -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Hi Expat,
OK, point one, "Who gave it to them" I take it from this you mean the pre-European population of North America? Well, since no trace on human habitation has been found before them, then it is safe to say that they found it!
From the 13 Colonies, well, they were founded by European settlers, who drove out the previous inhabitants, mainly through the introduction of European diseases to which the American Indian people had no immunity. (measles, smallpox, even flu)
Anyway, back to the Falklands. A brief history of the islands. They were first sight in the 1500s, but no landing was made until 1690 when a British ship landed there. Britain, France and Spain set up temporary settlements. In 1820 Argentina (which was a newly independent nation) claimed sovereignty had been handed over by Spain (Spain never had sovereignty), and set up a temporary settlement. In 1833 The British reclaimed the islands, expelled the Argentinians and set up the first permanent settlements, and they are still there. The islanders consider themselves British, and when Argentina invaded in 1982, the islanders were kept under virtual house arrest. All schools were closed, and the islanders were told they were to be taught Spanish, not English. Britain retook the islands by force, and defeated an army which vastly outnumbered them, and did this all at the end of a 10000 mile logistics chain, with little preparation. Oil reserves were not even known at the time of the Falklands War, and still remain un-tapped due to the difficulty in exploiting them. The War came at a very convenient time for the Thatcher government, and was a major factor in getting a very un-popular government re-elected. The islanders themselves were, to say the least, very pleased to be liberated from Argentine invaders (especially since Argentina was then governed by a particularly unpleasant military regime). If oil is exploited there, then it will result in significant prosperity for the islanders, and of course a nice boost for the UK's economy, so I still can't see your argument for them proclaiming independence or anything along those lines. If they did so, then Argentina would invade again like a shot.
Cheers
DL -
Message 11
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Hi DL,
"OK, point one, "Who gave it to them" I take it from this you mean the pre-European population of North America? Well, since no trace on human habitation has been found before them, then it is safe to say that they found it! "
You agree, noone gave it to them.
"From the 13 Colonies, well, they were founded by European settlers, who drove out the previous inhabitants, mainly through the introduction of European diseases to which the American Indian people had no immunity. (measles, smallpox, even flu)"
Not to mention the point of a muzzle loader and rifle butt. Last time I looked Brits were European.
"expelled the Argentinians and set up the first permanent settlements"
What is wrong with that picture.
"If oil is exploited there, then it will result in significant prosperity for the islanders, and of course a nice boost for the UK's economy"
It's so nice of you to let the serfs have some.
"so I still can't see your argument for them proclaiming independence"
"That's MY argument ?
Will the Falkland Islanders refuse to tolerate London plundering their oil reserves, or will they act like the brain dead Scots. Your thoughts gentlemen."
Actually I was trying to rattle some Scottish cages.
Cheers. -
Message 12
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Yeah, well stop rattling the sabre and just leave.
-
Message 13
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 30th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'><BR /><BR />Will the Falkland Islanders refuse to tolerate London plundering their oil reserves, or will they act like the brain dead Scots. Your thoughts gentlemen.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />No, they consider themselves British and are grateful to the British Army and the lives of the men who died defending their rights from the invading military Junta.
-
Message 14
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Or maybe because wee've had the blood of our soldiers spilt on it's soil? Maybe becuase the inhabitants consider themselves British? BTW, Yes, I have been there, and they do want to be British.
-
Message 15
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'><BR />Actually I was trying to rattle some Scottish cages.<BR /><BR />Cheers.<BR /></QUOTE><BR /><BR />Rattle away, expat. <BR /><BR />Even the SNP have largely realised that the claim "It's Scotland's Oil" didn't work for them thirty years ago and isn't going to work for them now.
-
Message 16
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all subsidised by England.
-
Message 17
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all subsidised by England.
Μύ
And quite right too. You give us all your money and we'll give you, er... Gordon Brown.
Anyway, Scotland needs to be subsidised so our MSP's can spend it all on new Parliament building and expenses claims.
Trying to be a bit more serious, the SNP's claims were that the Barnett formula would not have needed to subsidise Scotland if we had had independence becasue we would have had the oil revenue for the past thirty years. Now, of course, Labour cannot amend the Barnett formula as that would create an uproar in Scotland, and would be seen as a direct result of devolution - on eof Labour's main "achievements". There are too many Scottish Labout MP's for them to risk a backlash and lose all those seats at th enext election. -
Message 18
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 6th October 2005
"Trying to be a bit more serious, the SNP's claims were that the Barnett formula would not have needed to subsidise Scotland if we had had independence becasue we would have had the oil revenue for the past thirty years. Now, of course, Labour cannot amend the Barnett formula as that would create an uproar in Scotland, and would be seen as a direct result of devolution - on eof Labour's main "achievements". There are too many Scottish Labout MP's for them to risk a backlash and lose all those seats at th enext election."
'England expects our oil' SNP poster
It is interesting that Britain has managed to flog all of our (Scottish) oil at the period it was cheapest.
I do not know the basis of the SNP's figures in terms of oil price but I assume it was based on Scotland getting all the oil and not the Shetlands going independent and the English/Scottish sea border being drawn on the basis of closeness to land. It is currently a straight line east -west.
the most recent SNP budget I saw was based on a drastic cut in defence spending which given the number of Scots in the British army could lead to a lot of them being unemployed.
As for the Scottish parliamant, that went from Β£36 million to Β£440 milion but when have the civil service ever been able to run a project? -
Message 19
Posted by Colloquial_Finnish (U2177569) on Sunday, 9th October 2005
I spent many 'happy days and nights' in 1982 freezing my b** off so Britain would be able to enjoy the fruits of victory
However, if the islanders want to go it alone then good luck to them. There is much to learn from the home of the brave and the land of the free - Cuba -
Message 20
Posted by disgruntledrenegade (U1710529) on Monday, 10th October 2005
expat32, you seem obsessed with asking "who gave it to them" in regards to native americans, so i would like to ask you, who gave the land to YOU and your countrymen (if your american that is :P)
nobody gave France to the French, but we agree that germany had no right to invade and hold france, so whats different about the Native Americans, except of course that they were mistreated and butchered by the so called Land of the Free with its claims of all men being created equal. And what about Texas? that was stolen from Mexico, so who gave you that?
Its difficult to see how the falkland islanders could be upset, after all they consider themselves to be the same as someone sitting in london or leeds, they are british citizens living and working under british law or at least the Law of England and Wales, any exploitation of oil will benefit them extremely. -
Message 21
Posted by halfmanhalfbiscuit (U2101110) on Sunday, 16th October 2005
any info on the origins of the islanders,what part of the uk they cam from? how they ended up there? etc.
-
Message 22
Posted by plonka63 (U2237205) on Sunday, 16th October 2005
I am afraid the Falkland Islanders forgot that we liberated them the moment the Argentinians left. they were not very friendly to us liberating troops
-
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 17th October 2005
Des,
From all over the British Isles.... -
Message 24
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 17th October 2005
Plonka,
I've been over there twice, and I couldn't disagree with you more, I found them thankful and friendly....
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.