BonnieSituation wrote: » Good thing you're here as I haven't watched or read any news since 1991.:rolleyes: --- So none of the FYR's are viable in your mind, except Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia cos reasons? And creeping out from their former status as constituent republics of a federal State that had a massive civil war... imagine the cheek of them seeking assistance and possible EU help to strengthen their economies to solidify their independene and improve their quality of life.
BonnieSituation wrote: So none of the FYR's are viable in your mind, except Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia cos reasons?
BonnieSituation wrote: And creeping out from their former status as constituent republics of a federal State that had a massive civil war... imagine the cheek of them seeking assistance and possible EU help to strengthen their economies to solidify their independene and improve their quality of life.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I wonder how much fishing waters would come with the Shetlands.
Drawing on official figures for an area of 127,000 km2 around Shetland, bounded by Faroese, Norwegian and the remainder of UK waters, Dr Napier calculated that local vessels landed 14 per cent of the fish and shellfish by weight and 21 per cent by value. ... In all, 450,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish worth £370m was landed from the “Shetland EEZ” by UK and EU boats annually from 2016 to 2018. On average, Shetland boats landed 120,000 tonnes worth £116m, 63,000 tonnes and £77m of which was caught in the “Shetland EEZ”. Pelagic fish dominated catches – four fifths (79 per cent) by weight and more than half (58 per cent) by value, with demersal fish accounting for 18 per cent by weight and 38 per cent by value. The “Shetland EEZ” accounts for 17 per cent of the UK EEZ and just over a quarter (27 per cent) of the Scottish part of the UK EEZ.
Water John wrote: » A bit outside the thread but Yugoslavia was a false construct of Tito, wasn't going to hold together.
First Up wrote: » Yes, my mistake. Actually, Slovenia was the first out (and helped into the EU with Italy's help). Croatia followed a similar path a bit later. It was always attached to Western Europe, Germany in particular and more efficient (and less corrupt) than the others.
BonnieSituation wrote: And Slovenia while you're at it?
First Up wrote: » OK - you asked. Kosovo was an Albanian ethnic enclave in Yugoslavia and then Serbia. It is now an independent state, based on nothing more than ethnicity, and with a religious (Muslim) distinction from (Orthodox) Serbia. Kosovo's secession from Serbia was bloody and brutal and needed NATO to end it. But whatever the wrongs it suffered, Kosovo is an utterly hopeless economic basket case, surviving largely on foreign aid and remittances from the many Kosovar and Albanian emigrants in Western Europe. Bosnia and Herzegovina is an unhappy mix of Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats, with a legacy back to WE2. It was created in bloodshed and operates under an artificial system of government that makes Stormont look good. It tries to help its pitifully small economy by imposing barriers (10k queues of trucks at the Serbian border are the norm). No chance of breaking the cycle until they can agree internally and not much sign of that. Montenegro's separation from Serbia was a late (and misguided) development. A pretty little country but far to small to maintain all the instruments needed for modern government and with industries too small to compete with big brother Serbia - or anyone else. It is desperately seeking shelter in the EU - the government hoping for financial support and the populace hoping for EU passports. Macedonia (now North Macedonia) is another tiny and uncomfortable mix of Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and a few others. A few small industries that were orphaned by the break up of Yugoslavia and without the international network, local expertise or foreign investment to kick start the stagnant economy. Only Croatia (who escaped early and were taken in by the EU with Italy's help) and Serbia (always the strongest and most cohesive part of Yugoslavia) are in any kind of shape. If anyone wants to see the dark side of ethnic nationalism, look at the former Yugoslavia
BonnieSituation wrote: Go on...
First Up wrote: » Some of them are very evidently not viable.
Markcheese wrote: » 200 mile limit except where it clashes with someone else ? ,a lot of shetland islanders don't particularly see themselves as being scottish ... So why would they want to change distant rule from westminster ( which has been good for them ) to distant rule from edinburg ?( Which is uncertain ), It could even benefit them to stay with the uk , especially if they hold on to ",their waters "
Water John wrote: By your logic none of the ex Yugoslavia countries would be viable.
View wrote: » Again that doesn’t alter the fact that every political boundary on the planet is an artificial creation/entity. One could just as easily argue - and historical our self styled “republicans” did argue - that the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland were/are artificial creations but that doesn’t alter the fact that such an artificial creation happened, nor does it mean that a majority here would rush to the polls today to abolish the “artificial creation” that is Ireland. And equally the same applies in NI today since, despite the decades since its creation - be that “artificial” or not - and despite a fair few political shocks during that time such as Brexit, there is no indication that a majority there would be willing to vote to end its existence.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » It's not silly at all. The UK and unionists were content to see Ireland as the national unit when they were getting their way, e.g. when denying Home Rule despite the clear majority of the island wanting it for decades. As soon as it became clear that the same rules which denied Home Rule were going to pave the way for it, unionists, aided by their friends in London, did as they so often do and changed the goalposts, insisting partition was now necessary, and threatening violence. That is how NI was born. We're now starting to see similar mischievous talk being applied to the Scottish independence debate, with articles on how the Shetlands might continue under Westminster rule. Classic divide and conquer tactics from the Tories.
BonnieSituation wrote: » I wonder what the definition of viable is in the mind of Unionsts?
Water John wrote: » 'The Basques in Spain have less of a point. Spain is made up of many former kingdoms and ethnicities - the Catalans being the noisiest - but go 100k in any direction in Spain and you will find differences in history, ethnicity, language, culture and food. But each region is unsustainable as a separate country and most of them know that.' First Up. By your logic none of the ex Yugoslavia countries would be viable.
Sam Russell wrote: » Would not the Shetlands want to be allied with the Faroes rather than Westminster? What possible benefit would the Shetlands gain from being tied to those loons in Westminster?
View wrote: » Every single county, region and nation on the planet are artificially created entities, so applying that criticism to NI is a bit silly. Moreover, even if you got every single DUP voter to agree with you NI was an artificially created entity when it was created, that doesn’t mean they’d (or many others in NI would) vote to abolish it today, just as people here aren’t going to vote to abolish the artificially created entity that is (the Republic of) Ireland.
Sam Russell wrote: » There are two areas that might be worth looking at: the Basque country and the Kurdish nation. Now the Basque region is divided into two - one area in France and the rest in Spain. The Spanish side are looking for independence, but the French side are not. It might be worth studying why that would be. The Kurdish nation are spread over three countries - Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. There may be some in Iran. They should be united into one country, but each of the countries that house them have gone to war against their own population and neighbouring Kurds to prevent it. It is intractable because of that. If Syria granted them independence, Turkey would (and have) invaded to stop it. In the question at issue on this thread, it is quite clear that Scotland is a separate country from England, with different laws (and legal structures) and different customs (the men wear skirts), and a different language (Gallic and even when they speak their version of English). That is sufficient for me to say Scotland should be independent, if enough of them think they should.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » The UK never cared about the principle of consent. NI was an artificially created entity designed to preserve power for a minority. Unionists didn't have a majority in 6 counties but in 4, as most people in Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted no part of being in NI. Also one of the reasons the Treaty was signed was because the Irish delegates were given the impression that a Boundary Commission would create a fairer border, making a redrawn NI so small as to be unlikely to function successfully. That proved another con. During the Second World War the British were prepared to enter into negotiations for reunification provided de Valera's government offered help. Again, this would have gone against any principle of consent. It's odd to hear a movement that centred around the phrase 'Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will be Right' being portrayed as one concerned about the principle of consent.
Imreoir2 wrote: » You said "any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in." Which happens to be exactly what happened in NI in 1922. Unionists had a majority in the 6 north eastern counties of Ireland, they did not consent to being part of an independant Ireland and opted out. The logic of your argument seems to suggest that Ireland had a right to integrity that would have allowed us to force the majority Unionist population of NI into a 32 county Ireland against their will. That standpoint would surely have made it equally as valid for the UK to force Ireland to stay in the UK against our will so that they could preserve the integrity of their country. The ideology you seem to be suggesting led to a lot of conflict on this island, until we decided to agree with the UK on the principle of consent. I happen to agree with that principle and would take a dim view of any government trying to impose their will against the consent of its people. That applies to NI, to Scotland, or to any other region democratically desiring self determination that you might care to mention.
rock22 wrote: » I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that response to my post. I never mention NI
