The BIG thread of hun topics and other assorted mentalness from Albatross!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Yes I do.

In the same way that Rockall is Irish.

Taking a poll of people whose sole purpose of existence is to preserve British sovereignty and then citing that poll as evidence of the validity of its outcome is pretty mental
 
Like Rockall, I am basing it on proximity. Both were uninhabited. Rockall still is. I can't think of any compelling reason it wouldn't be the Argentinians.

The Brits kept a permanant colony from the mid 19th Century. The population is there to maintain British rule. I find it quite absurd that they would think themselves to be British.
 
RebelBhoy said:
Like Rockall, I am basing it on proximity. Both were uninhabited. Rockall still is. I can't think of any compelling reason it wouldn't be the Argentinians.

The Brits kept a permanant colony from the mid 19th Century. The population is there to maintain British rule. I find it quite absurd that they would think themselves to be British.
Click to expand...

The inter-generational Spanish migrant population have been in Argentina for around the same timescale as the British farmers have been in the Falklands - I'm not really a fan of Imperialism, so I'm not sure why a break-away Spanish imperialist colony, with no civilians living on these islands, have more rights than this incumbent British population.
 
I understand that. Which is why I am basing it on proximity. I recognise the right of the British and all her constituent people to govern in Britain. Which in (almost) Post Colonial Britain is made up of folk from all over the globe. In the same way I recognise that Argentina is now an independent Republic born of a colonial past. I recognise the right of both to govern.

If wee small islands with is situated where it is that is subject to a territorial dispute based solely on the natural resources of those islands, then it seems natural to side with the party in closest proximity.
 
RebelBhoy said:
I understand that. Which is why I am basing it on proximity. I recognise the right of the British and all her constituent people to govern in Britain. Which in (almost) Post Colonial Britain is made up of folk from all over the globe. In the same way I recognise that Argentina is now an independent Republic born of a colonial past. I recognise the right of both to govern.

If wee small islands with is situated where it is that is subject to a territorial dispute based solely on the natural resources of those islands, then it seems natural to side with the party in closest proximity.
Click to expand...

Bollocks
 
The fact that any of you give a **** about the future of a few peasants on a pishy wee rock in the middle of **** all is laughable.
 
By the way, shove yer geographical politics up yer arse and get back to slagging off Rangers ...
 
Incidentally, I watched a programme on Scottish Independence on the BBC a few weeks ago. It was a Question Time formatted show and the audience were made up of immigrants to Scotland and the host was asking them their opinions on Scotland's future.

Nearer the end of the show, and the crowd were made up of people who'd been here between 1 year to 40 years, Black/Asian/Eastern Europeans, the host asked them about racism, and ALL of them said that they'd never experienced any sort of racism in all their years in Scotland, YET there is 5th generation Irishmen still persecuted by the indigenous Jocks.

Why El Papa, WHY!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back