Originally Posted by
Elodeon
You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous examples where the situation is completely turned around.
Falkland Islands: insignificant population, huge natural resources. Dispute is over natural resources, so therefore that should be the center of the argument. Where the small population votes to be is a distraction. Islands are very far from Britain, so Britain's claim to these resources, by virtue of 2,841 British people settled there, is rather tenuous.
Aland islands: right smack in between Sweden and Finland, so who's more entitled to them is a toss-up, really. No significant resources to fight over. Might as well have the population decide.
Someone actually compared the Falkland situation with France claiming the British Isles, because they're in front of them. What... on... Earth? Britain: huge population, few major natural resources. Of course the population decides their sovereignty, when there's so many of them, compared to resources to fight over.