View Full Version : Falklands land grab + Rockall
peter macdonald
24-Sep-07, 11:10
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1520532007
Ah well now we know It was not about Britishness as Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher and the tories told us it was really about OIL!!! Wow what a surprise !!
I suppose with Gordon Browns rate of borrowing and Scotlands (Sorry the UKs )oil reserves about finished (according to new Labour) He really has to do something doesnt he ?? Mind you I would love to have seen the Sun etc headlines had the Argentines tried this one... Dear me !!
Regarding Rockall What would happen if Scotland became independant ??? More oil for Scotland???
Oh well as we decend into a period of tension over resources as oil runs out maybe windfarms will be the least of our worries
PM
It,s always been common knowledge that the area around the Falklands was rich in oil, its just, that because of the turbulence between Britain & Argentina made it impossible for the oil co,s to invest there.
The whole Faklands invasion was about Argentina trying to stake its claim for mineral rights - old news that Peter.
The whole Faklands invasion was about Argentina trying to stake its claim for mineral rights - old news that Peter.
I agree Sctsboy, old and dated news
peter macdonald
24-Sep-07, 17:40
"Ah well now we know It was not about Britishness as Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher and the tories told us it was really about OIL!!! Wow what a surprise !!"
Sorry for the badly written post which failed to conmunicate my taste for the ironic
The point of the post was to point out that the Tories propaganda of the time was of the " gallant Tommies save British citizens from evil oppression" type
We all knew it was for the resources of the area around the Falklands/Malvinas
fish or oil what ever and also that we look as though we are going along the road to resources based conflicts at an ever increasing rate However when
governments of the time look to get involved in these "events" they always pull out the patriotic storyline
Sorry my post was hurried and not made clear
PM
Well as I was steaming towards Ascension Island in 1982 on a BP Tanker I can assure you we all knew it was about Mineral respurce rights. Of course the Falklands were invaded and to be honest the UK did the right thing in repelling the invaders...........but whether "we" should have ownership oor not, now that is a whole new post:)
Well as I was steaming towards Ascension Island in 1982 on a BP Tanker I can assure you we all knew it was about Mineral respurce rights. Of course the Falklands were invaded and to be honest the UK did the right thing in repelling the invaders...........but whether "we" should have ownership oor not, now that is a whole new post:)
An interesting thought Scotsboy, I agree, we were right to defend the Falklands.
But should we hand back Gibraltar to Spain? My former Naval Gibraltarian colleagues all definately said a resounding NO.
An interesting thought Scotsboy, I agree, we were right to defend the Falklands.
But should we hand back Gibraltar to Spain? My former Naval Gibraltarian colleagues all definately said a resounding NO.
Well there,s an arguement now, were we right to give Hong Kong back to the Chinese. I suppose if it was,nt for the mineral right,s the Argentines would likely have had the Falklands,
yes to Falklands !!No to spain!!! no to chinese sad day we left Hong Kong last goverenor and HRH on another great ship that day sadly inretirement
Maybe ive got it wrong here but how would it feel if the Outer Hebrides belonged to Spain & the Orkneys and Shetlands belonged to China.?
Or even if the Faeroe Isles belonged to Denmark ot the Channel Islands belonged to Britain.
I wonder how Denmark and the Faeroese would feel if we suddenly turned up one morning, camped the Highlanders all over the place and demanded that they become Scottish?
And the reason the Argentine tried to grab control of the Falklands had a lot more to it than either oil, fish or mineral rights as was shown by the birth of one small Argentinean child.
Oh, and by rights the Orkneys should still belong to Norway, as I suspect should the Shetlands or at least the Norwegians have the right to take them back at the cost of a few shillings. (That's 5 pences for those who only know the new money)
Oh, and by rights the Orkneys should still belong to Norway, as I suspect should the Shetlands or at least the Norwegians have the right to take them back at the cost of a few shillings. (That's 5 pences for those who only know the new money)
I beg to differ the Orkneys were part of a security for a dowry, to King James III, which was never paid, so IMHO are leaglly part of Scotland see below
"The Orkneys, under the name ‘Orcades’, are mentioned by ancient geographical writers, including Pliny and Ptolemy. In 876 Harold I (Harald Haarfager) conquered the Orkneys and the Hebrides. During most of the 10th century the Orkney Islands were ruled by independent Scandinavian jarls (earls), but in 1098 became subject to the Norwegian crown and remained Scandinavian until 1468, when they were given to James III as security for his wife's dowry. In 1590, on the marriage of James VI with the Danish Princess Anne, Denmark formally resigned all pretensions to the sovereignty of the Orkneys. However, during their long connection with Norway and Denmark, all traces of the primitive Celtic population disappeared, and the present inhabitants are of Scandinavian stock."
Wasn't that the Maid of Norway, who died before even reaching her destination in Scotland, let alone getting married.
"Well, we would have got married if she wasn't dead so I'll just hang on to the dowry. If you want it back you'll have to come and take it!" I don't think I'll comment on that bit of logic.
I'm still a bit suspicious that once dear King James had his hands on the goodies his young, perfectly healthy wife-to-be was suddenly taken mysteriously ill at sea, where there was no help or witnesses, and died.
I'm still a bit suspicious that once dear King James had his hands on the goodies his young, perfectly healthy wife-to-be was suddenly taken mysteriously ill at sea, where there was no help or witnesses, and died.
I am more suspicious of Edward I the king of England , he wanted his son to marry the Maid of Norway as she was grandaughter of Alexander III king of Scotland, and heir to the Scottish Crown, and then he would be able to lay claim to Scotland [disgust]
I am more suspicious of Edward I the king of England , he wanted his son to marry the Maid of Norway as she was grandaughter of Alexander III king of Scotland, and heir to the Scottish Crown, and then he would be able to lay claim to Scotland [disgust]
What makes you think that Edward I's son was unsuitable for the marriage union and/or that Edward I was unsuitable for having a stronger influence over Scotland?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.