Give back the Chagos Islands and apologise

MaizieD re your post about the Isle of Wight being sold and how the British would be furious - obviously the Mauritians were so happy with the £3 million sale that they did not make a fuss. They should be ashamed too.

However, I agree it is a disgrace, a stain that needs to be put right.

The Falkland Islanders have been there since the early 1800s, the Chagossians on their islands about the samr length of time, taken there as slaves by the French, others went to live there many years later.

crystaltipps

Can you see no irony at all in your posts?
The Chagos Islanders want to return to their islands after being exiled for nearly 50 years, yet you think it is fine to exile Falkland Islanders to a Scottish Island somewhere?

The difference is the inhabitants of Chagos are indigenous people who want to go back to their homeland. If Britain is the Falklanders “ homeland” they should be fine with being relocated to Britain.

If we're talking about Empire, then the Chagos Islands were colonised by the French, I think, who used the inhabitants as slaves. Then as part of a treaty they and Mauritius were ceded to the British, Mauritius then became self-governing and sold GB the Chagos Islands not that long ago for £3million. whereupon GB exiled the islanders and the Americans were allowed to lease an island for a military base.

It's time the islands were handed back and the islanders themselves decide on their future and paid reparation.
Past history should be put in the context of the times but this more recent history is a disgrace.

I think a fair few Scots were involved in Empire building, colonising, over the years hence so many place names in former colonies are Scottish!

crystaltipps "the tiny population would be welcome come back and live on a Scottish island or somewhere similar", ignoring the fact that most of them clearly don't want to be relocated. Returning to the original topic how would that be different from the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands being evicted to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

I think we ALL know Britain doesn't rule the waves lets face it boats would be required for such a task.

You have answered your own question, crystaltipps (as I'm sure you know) by using the words "militarily strategic". Of course, perhaps there are oil reserves to be considered as well...

AC has spent a lot of time in the Falkland Islands, he has said that the people are happy with their way of life and do not want to change.

Now can we get back to the OP, Ben Fogle has done a documentary on the Chagos Islands, I am looking for it if and when I find it I will let you know.

The British took over the Falklands for strategic reasons, people who live there are descendants of those who generations ago left the U.K. to live there to improve their lives in some way. Why we need to hang onto them and other militarily strategic places goodness only knows. The tiny population would be welcome to come back and live on a Scottish island or somewhere similar if they love Britain so much, no reason why we should be involved in some outpost in the South Atlantic. Breaking news - We no longer rule the waves.

Perhaps, Caledonail, if you'd given this thread a title like Lets give back the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles we might have had a discussion about the Chagos Islands

What's so special about 2019

The Falkland Islands were unoccupied before the British took them over hope that's pedantic enough for you Lily65.

But one wouldn't wish to be pedantic, because that would be silly in 2019.

The Falkland Islands were settled by the British mid 18th century, Argentina gained independence from Spain early 19th century, The Spanish having colonised that part of the world from the 16th century onwards. The Falkland Islands aren't like the Isle of Wight they are miles offshore, about 300 miles at the nearest point to Argentina. The population of Argentina is comprised of mainly Spanish, Italian and British and to a lesser extent other Europeans, these incomers haven't been there that long a couple of centuries maybe, probably no longer than the original Falkland Islanders themselves. Anyone who visits will notice that Argentina, unlike other South American countries, have very few indigenous people left, that's because the first settlers the Spanish wiped them out, it's almost entirely European. If one were to be pedantic therefore it could be considered that Argentina and the Falkland Islands have both been appropriated.

Britain ruling over others and bullying smaller nations. Who’dve thought it?

so give them back to modern Argentina and chuck all the Brits off.

Good point Ellan
I certainly don’t agree with giving back the Elgin marbles either, or anything else.They were bought at the time.
If every country that bought things in good faith at the time, gave those things back, museums in all countries would never be able to view anything other than items that come from their own country!
Viewing the past through modern eyes never works.All militarily ( if that is a word ?) strong countries took over or bought land at that particular time.

Various groups of islanders have been trying to get it through the courts in the UK over the years and Mauritius has been protesting all along. I would imagine everything was halted during the Gulf and Afghanistan conflicts because of the strategic importance of the US base, but the UN ruling is on the initial unfairness and the lack of subsequent respect for Mauritius's claim and the wellbeing of the islanders. I don't know how long the actual proceedings took at the International Court of Justice, but given how long it sometimes takes to get ordinary cases to and through courts.....

Why now after 50 years ?

So, to get back to the thread. I don't normally use Daily Mail links but this one was actually one of the better summaries of the situation.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6745057/Future-army-base-Diego-Garcia-hangs-balance-rules-illegally-seized

Hey MaizieD this must be at least TWICE we’ve been in agreement now! (over several months!). Who’d have thought it eh?
?

If I were Scottish I’d be FURIOUS!

Ha! I have said that, too, on other threads, Urmstongran

As to why Scotland would like to remain in the EU, that's just derailing this thread again... So I won't join in that discussion...

MaizieD since I haven’t reported any of your posts we cannot know what they think.

They deleted your post, lemon because I reported it. I also volunteered to have my post deleted. They haven't deleted it. I think that makes it pretty clear.

It is normal for small countries to want to run themselves, that's exactly why we want to leave The EU. If you really believe that Paddyann, why, having at some future date, would Scotland, having hopefully gained its independence, immediately want to be run by the EU Commission? Surely independence means, as you've said, running your own affairs without outside interference! Being in the EU totally contradicts that view!

I’m sure paddyann that you can therefore identify with those of us who voted to Leave the superstate of the EU as we too believe a small country can thrive and be proud of ourselves.

And I have said before paddyann on these forums that I for one am in agreement with you and other Scottish people who wish most fervently to vote for independence as David Cameron shafted your nation over this issue. He sneakily told you that the best way for Scotland to stay in the EU was to remain part of the U.K. THEN he called the referendum!

It seems DC (along with the majority of MP’s in the HoC) truly believed Remain would win. He and they were wrong. So Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against its will and were persuaded to stick with us in the process.

If I were Scottish I’d be FURIOUS!