Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The Falklands is about economics too. Oil, same as Iraq. The economic benefits of Iraq for the UK have been zero though, and the cost astronomical. UK companies have benefited but not the UK public. That's no true. I cannae remember the exact sequence of events but Maggie Thatcher wanted an immigration policy so she decided there would be four levels of possible immigrants. People from Australia, New Zealand and Canada would be in the first tier. Indian sub-continent in the second tier. I'm no sure about the third tier but The fourth tier consisted of wee enclaves of British territories in South America, etc. When the policy was approved in Parliament the Argentinians invaded the Falklands. The following week it was rushed through Parliament and the Falklands were promoted to Tier one. Now it is accepted that it is about oil but then it was about the affront tae the British Empire and the Monarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Partially but they knew about the oil then, and also it was to help Thatcher win an election too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Well they bloody well should do given that the financial, moral and security consequences are so huge when the decisions are made. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly when three million people march against it like with Iraq the government should listen and not decide to take part. But I don't know if people should be consulted directly every time, we elect governments to make these decisions for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Not to mention the location of the Falklands was very handle for the UK military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Not to mention the location of the Falklands was very handle for the UK military That's also true, very strategic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Maybe, maybe not. Certainly when three million people march against it like with Iraq the government should listen and not decide to take part. But I don't know if people should be consulted directly every time, we elect governments to make these decisions for us. I will agree with that when we are independent. Just now it is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Well that's a good point, in Scotland its MP's from another country who decide when Scots get to sent to fight and die. Which is something that has to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Not to mention the location of the Falklands was very handle for the UK military I remember not long after that war it was said that it would have been cheaper to give each Falkland islander £1million pound than to have fought that war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Partially but they knew about the oil then, and also it was to help Thatcher win an election too. THis was a result of the war rather than a reason. There is no doubt that this lead to a rise in her popularity but there was no need to hold an election in 1983. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 THis was a result of the war rather than a reason. There is no doubt that this lead to a rise in her popularity but there was no need to hold an election in 1983. Could be right, I was very young at the time. It definitely won her that election though, and was why it was called early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The Falklands is about economics too. Oil, same as Iraq. The economic benefits of Iraq for the UK have been zero though, and the cost astronomical. UK companies have benefited but not the UK public. I reckon the main reason for the Falklands was Thatcher wanting a boost to her decreasing popularity. It worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I reckon the main reason for the Falklands was Thatcher wanting a boost to her decreasing popularity. It worked. Reckon that was probably at least part of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I reckon the main reason for the Falklands was Thatcher wanting a boost to her decreasing popularity. It worked. I think it was mair the immigration policy that caused that war. When Argentina saw that the Falklands were in division four and were only there tae make up the numbers they then decided tae invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I reckon the main reason for the Falklands was Thatcher wanting a boost to her decreasing popularity. It worked. You reckon wrong. There was obvious political ramifications from the conflict but to suggest that what the UK undertook in 1982 was driven by a need for Mrs Thatcher to increase here popularity is quite obviously uninformed opinion. The immigration policy was not even the reason behind the conflict. Argentina's new military junta that came to power in 1981 included Admiral Anaya who ordered a plan to be made up for the invasion and conviced General Galtieri that not only would it boost their popularity but also that the UK would not attempt to defend the islands. None of this was anything to do with Mrs Thatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You reckon wrong. There was obvious political ramifications from the conflict but to suggest that what the UK undertook in 1982 was driven by a need for Mrs Thatcher to increase here popularity is quite obviously uninformed opinion. The immigration policy was not even the reason behind the conflict. Argentina's new military junta that came to power in 1981 included Admiral Anaya who ordered a plan to be made up for the invasion and conviced General Galtieri that not only would it boost their popularity but also that the UK would not attempt to defend the islands. None of this was anything to do with Mrs Thatcher. And that's no true (If I remember correctly). It may have been a coincidence but Argentina didn't invade until after the immigration policy was approved by the Commons. The Falklands were in division four so obviously the Argentinians thought that they were irrelevant to Britain (which they were). It was after they invaded that the Falklands were promoted to division one and a war was fought over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 And that's no true (If I remember correctly). It may have been a coincidence but Argentina didn't invade until after the immigration policy was approved by the Commons. The Falklands were in division four so obviously the Argentinians thought that they were irrelevant to Britain (which they were). It was after they invaded that the Falklands were promoted to division one and a war was fought over them. Argentina did not invade the Falklands as a result of the UK passing the British Nationality Act 1981. The change in dictatorship in Argentina was without doubt the catalyst to the invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Argentina did not invade the Falklands as a result of the UK passing the British Nationality Act 1981. The change in dictatorship in Argentina was without doubt the catalyst to the invasion. I'm no denying that but I am saying that the Falklands in division four must have helped the Argentinians tae make up their minds. It may have been a coincidence or perhaps it wisnae a coincidence. Wha kens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 They are also caused by belligerent English MPs. Remember the Falklands. Yep, deffo no Scottish, Welsh or NI MP's involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 That is my point entirely. The No voters are content tae let English MPs decide Scotlands past, present and future. You're demented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Wee Willie, on 14 May 2015 - 13:09, said: They are also caused by belligerent English MPs. Remember the Falklands. Yep, deffo no Scottish, Welsh or NI MP's involved. Wee Willie, on 14 May 2015 - 13:11, said: That is my point entirely. The No voters are content tae let English MPs decide Scotlands past, present and future. You're demented. ------------------------------- There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons. 59 are from Scotland. I’m no sure how many from Wales & N. Ireland. There are 330 Tories + 232 Labour from England. I'm no including the Liberals but England has roughly 10 times the MPs that Scotland has. My point is that no matter whichever way the Scots MPs vote it is the English MPs that carry the vote. Can you understand that? The No voters are content tae let English MPs decide Scotlands past, present and future What is wrong with that statement? You're demented. I’m no cos I keep taking my pills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.