buctootim

Any more what? Showing Hutch up to be wrong? again. Why choose North Uist? Soay is much closer

No but they were granted rights to all yet to be discovered land in that area by the Pope. Pedro Reinel mapped them in 1522

240 miles Isla de los Estados to Port Stephens. http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Argentina/to/Falkland+Islands+Malvinas

Its about that give or take 10 miles or so. Certainly its further from the British mainland than the Falklands are from Argentina. Its actually closer to Ireland.

You dont think maps are credible sources of information?

Not really. Spain had a claim to the islands since 1492 and an agreement between France and Spain in 1764 settled their ownership as part of the Spanish colonies in South America - the Virreinato del la Playa. When the colonies achieved independence ownership transferred to them. Britain stole them. Anyway as I said regardless of whether they should have been appropriated 180 years ago is now academic as the rights of the people take precedence. No-one the Brits, Spanish or anyone else really cared about the islands themselves until 1982. Until then they were just barren strips of land useful only as a refuelling station for whalers and warships. Argentina fished the waters around the islands intensively. What triggered the invasion was the 1982 agreement of Exclusive Economic Zones up to 200 miles through UNCLOS. That had the effect of not only excluding Argentina from waters around the Falklands but also hugely reducing their own national waters. The success of deep sea drilling for oil (and its increasing price) suddenly the made the islands important, not for themselves but for their waters, hence the invasion.

A map?

Thats sweet and interesting in a schoolboy essay kind of way - but again off on a tangent. Aintforever made a point about the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina and drew a parallel with settling islands off the coast of Scotland. Gotsmanov implied it wasnt comparable since the Falklands were further away. I pointed out Rockall was further offshore than the Falklands. CB Fry went into a purple vein rant about something no-one mentioned. For what is worth I think the islands technically belong to Argentina but that the rights of the islanders to self determination should take precedence. However, the fight isnt really about people or whether the islands have sheep or grazing, its about the 200 mile EEZ in the waters around the islands and the access to the resources that sovereignty brings. You should look up UNCLOS Perhaps that might be helpful to you in some small way.

Uncanny similarity. Odd the picture was taken two years ago and posted on wiki.

I dont think Gotsmanov mentioned population. His post was based on geographic entitlement. Try to focus.

Rockall is 270 miles from Britain

I would argue the right way round is go formulate policies based on what you believe in and seek to get elected. The electorates job is to vote for those who most closely represent them. 9m aren't left unrepresented - some will like Corbyn more than Blairite policies, some will ike them less and move elsewhere and some who were previously disenfranchised will find a voice for them.

Couldnt they just give them a swipe card? The fuss is clearly because of echos of wearing a yellow star.

Is this what you are referring to? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-plans-change-to-labour-party-rules-to-head-off-plot-to-oust-him-by-2020-a6732486.html Corbyn clearly has large support amongst the rank and file membership and and very little amongst Labour MPs - and Labour MPs largely control who can be elected leader. You could argue that the MPs should reflect the views of the members. As far as I can see from that article the rules he was elected under are scheduled to change anyway to raise the number of MPs required to endorse a candidate from 35 to 50. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me that an incumbemt leader should have the right to stand in any election against a challenger. Just to be clear I think there is a disconnect between what members voted for and what is electable. Which should take precedence depends on your politics.

Aren't you guys talking about different things? JB is talking about the system for electing a Labour leader, not a general election (afaik)

I think PRT in the North Sea is 50% so even at $30 per barrel it would still be huge. Obviously the technical challenges are different and probably the tax rates will be too but they should still end up with more money than anyone will know what to do with.

They are soon to become some of the richest people in world with around 1bn barrels of oil discovered so far. If their gov used the same petroleum revenue tax as Britain that would be c£10bn shared between c2,750 people - about £7,000,000 each.

1. Thatcher did think about handing them off in the early 1980s recession because of the cost. It was that lack of commitment which encouraged the Argies to invade. 2. It is now 2016 not the 1980s so your point is irrelevant 3. The Falklands costs more to protect than it produces in GDP. Don't let facts confuse you

If only I'd known. I'd have made a £1,000 donation.

Scored three goals at Marseiile, Porto pay 20m for him where he flops but the price goes up to 25m. Only in football.

I reckon they got VW to massage the figures

Ha, good find Jamie. Reagan sometimes came across as a bit of an idiot, but thats because he was pretty much deaf by the time he got to be President, maybe even early stages of Alzheimers. If you watch some of his early speeches he was in different league to Trump.

UKIP told me they were already here!