What did Bobby Sands die for?

RandomName2

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Bobby Sands wanted to be treated as what he was, a political prisoner, a prisoner of war. He had the courage and conviction to stick to his principles to the very end, backed all the way by his peers and the people. He was prepared to die, and ultimately did, for what he believed in.

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken.


They won't break me because the desire for freedom, and the freedom of the Irish people, is in my heart. The day will dawn when all the people of Ireland will have the desire for freedom to show. It is then that we will see the rising of the moon.


We must see our present fight right through to the very end."


Bobby Sands was no criminal. He was a hero.

He believed in a certain course of action, and committed crimes in support of this cause. When treated like a criminal he starved himself to death.

Catholicism has always had a funny line between martyrdom and suicide because it has such a polarised view of both

It is sadly ironic that Sand's election is perhaps most indicative of the whole problem experienced in the Troubles whereby politics was not seen as a means of opposition, but merely a reflection of a military campaign. He was elected by those who knew he would never be able to take his seat. Had he even been able to take his seat he diligently would not have, due to the fact that he recognised neither the Home Rule government of his country nor the rule of Westminster.

The whole incident also highlights the difficulty in modern warfare whereby success through conventional means is not possible, and instead a modus opperandi of terrorism seems more productive and with a greater likelihood of success. In this context it is difficult to define what a soldier is. However, the prevailing view of most governments and peoples is that if you are prepared to forgo the conventions of standard warfare (wearing uniforms, representing governments, engaging military targets etc.) then you also forgo the right to be treated as a soldier, and are made a mere pariah of the state which you inhabit.

What is objectively true is that Sands believed in something, and suffered for this belief. It does not mean that one must agree with him though.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Care to list them?
Violence in India, Palestine, Rhodesia, Aden, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. Most of the places with an Imperial fingerprint are ridden with violence as far as I can see. And please don't give me the "that's because things were better under Britain and the savages can't run the place
themselves" jive.

Hello ISAW. How about I give you this ''jive''please reread my post and your own !

I will repeat -most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence , Fact ( as you like to say yourself)

That they became violent thereafter is a completely separate issue, the 50's 60's and 70's were a parade of newly independant states from former empires.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed if you go to France or Germany and claim that you are a slave of someone else the law of that land does not allow you to reject your human rights.


I am pointing out the binding law of a recognised state. they might not disagree with abortion on the baiss that the Irish constitution rejects abortion but they still disagree with abortion and think it is wrong. I'm just pointing out the fact is that the irish constitution enshrines this belief and British law rejects it.



Under British law yes! and if Britain invaded Ireland and put the boot in ( as they did in the past in Ireland and elsewhere) that wold be the de facto case ( and the de jure case under British law)




so care to explain to me what a "European" is by your reckoning?


Look we are discussing if RIRA or whatever got their way and the Irish constitution applied to ALL of Ireland. Under that state people in the North could claim to be British but the Iriah constitution would be the law of the land and under that they would be Irish and derive rights from being Irish. That is the fact of the matter. Just as today under British juristiction they operate under a British legal system.



Again as I pointed out it is ionalienable. If the British withdrew and the constitutional juristiction applied to the Noirth they could still call themselves British and derive rights under British law but they would be Irish under the Irish constitution and have inalienable rights derived from it. the constitution does not provide for people who wish to reject citizenship or reject their own human rights. they might not care to exercise those right but that is a different matter.



Where did I calim itt was? What I stated was that ther eis convincing evidence that Loyalist paralimilatarists were sectarian and that the PIRA for example were not to such an extent.



Yes it is! nice dodge! could you stop evading the question?
Is a Scottish man from Scotland born and bred there and who might say his is British.... is that man Scottish? can he suddenly stop being Scottish just by saying he is British?

ISAW I just dont understand your logic at all, are you saying that because the Irish Constitution confers the status ''Irish'' then that is it ??

Thats a bit like the Catholic Church saying you can never leave, maybe we could create a kind of limbo for those Unionists that refuse to conform and call them ''lapsed Irish''

What about all those babies born in Ireland of foreign nationals ? What is their position ?

And I still dont get what abortion has to do with any of this.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I will repeat -most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence , Fact ( as you like to say yourself)

Care to list the countries? And then we will see if there was no violence involved in the British being in them and using them to maintain an Empire?

so which is "most of" the British empire? We can exclude Ireland and begin woith other countries so how about listing these countries?

That they became violent thereafter is a completely separate issue, the 50's 60's and 70's were a parade of newly independant states from former empires.

Oh so Ireland is trodden on by the British empire and then they decide to give it independence but the fact that partition caused a civil War has nothing to do with Britain?
Come on?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Care to list the countries? And then we will see if there was no violence involved in the British being in them and using them to maintain an Empire?

so which is "most of" the British empire? We can exclude Ireland and begin woith other countries so how about listing these countries?



Oh so Ireland is trodden on by the British empire and then they decide to give it independence but the fact that partition caused a civil War has nothing to do with Britain?
Come on?

Lets agree to disagree, ISAW , you seem to distort every question and point made to you and leave questions unanswered when it suits.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW I just dont understand your logic at all, are you saying that because the Irish Constitution confers the status ''Irish'' then that is it ??

From the legal point of view of nationality in that juristiction yes!

just as under British law a Scot can call himself British and the irish people cant stop that per son getting a British passport.

That's a bit like the Catholic Church saying you can never leave, maybe we could create a kind of limbo for those Unionists that refuse to conform and call them ''lapsed Irish''

the Catholic Church is not the binding law of the Irish state.

What about all those babies born in Ireland of foreign nationals ? What is their position ?

Up to the recent change brought about by the child born in Belfast and ouotsuide Irish jurstiction but still covered by the irish constitution they are ALL Irish by dint of being born in Ireland! It was the only such country in the world. Now to be automatically Irish one parent must be Irish or the law must say they are irish. The law says they are Irish if they live in Ireland for five years.

A child born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. Other foreign national parents of children born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by being resident legally in the island of Ireland for at least 3 out of the previous 4 years immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship and can apply for a certificate of nationality

And I still don't get what abortion has to do with any of this.

Do you think Irish people with British citizenship from N Ireland think the Irish ban on abortion is a good thing and that the British should copy the Irish? i.e. they admire parts of the Irish constitution as beign better than the British one?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW I just dont understand your logic at all, are you saying that because the Irish Constitution confers the status ''Irish'' then that is it ??

From the legal point of view of nationality in that juristiction yes!

just as under British law a Scot can call himself British and the irish people cant stop that per son getting a British passport.

That's a bit like the Catholic Church saying you can never leave, maybe we could create a kind of limbo for those Unionists that refuse to conform and call them ''lapsed Irish''

the Catholic Church is not the binding law of the Irish state.

What about all those babies born in Ireland of foreign nationals ? What is their position ?

Up to the recent change brought about by the child born in Belfast and ouotsuide Irish jurstiction but still covered by the irish constitution they are ALL Irish by dint of being born in Ireland! It was the only such country in the world. Now to be automatically Irish one parent must be Irish or the law must say they are irish. The law says they are Irish if they live in Ireland for five years.

A child born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. Other foreign national parents of children born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by being resident legally in the island of Ireland for at least 3 out of the previous 4 years immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship and can apply for a certificate of nationality

And I still don't get what abortion has to do with any of this.

Do you think Irish people with British citizenship from N Ireland think the Irish ban on abortion is a good thing and that the British should copy the Irish? i.e. they admire parts of the Irish constitution as being better than the British one?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

From the legal point of view of nationality in that juristiction yes!

just as under British law a Scot can call himself British and the irish people cant stop that per son getting a British passport.



the Catholic Church is not the binding law of the Irish state.


Up to the recent change brought about by the child born in Belfast and ouotsuide Irish jurstiction but still covered by the irish constitution they are ALL Irish by dint of being born in Ireland! It was the only such country in the world. Now to be automatically Irish one parent must be Irish or the law must say they are irish. The law says they are Irish if they live in Ireland for five years.

A child born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. Other foreign national parents of children born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by being resident legally in the island of Ireland for at least 3 out of the previous 4 years immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship and can apply for a certificate of nationality




Do you think Irish people with British citizenship from N Ireland think the Irish ban on abortion is a good thing and that the British should copy the Irish? i.e. they admire parts of the Irish constitution as being better than the British one?

So those children of foreign nationals born in ireland are not Irish , correct ??

I have no idea what people in Britain think of abortion and the Irish Constitution, and as far as I know Britain does not have a constitution.
And I still dont see the relevance anyway.

Glassheart

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

Here is a pop test just for you.Who said this: :rolleyes:

"Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster...If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster...I would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies"

What Dev said was wrong but a PM actively encouraging Protestant businessmen not to employ Catholics is simply outrageous.

CrankyCod

ISAW wrote: »

The thing is that people were dying in any case. just as they are dying in Palestine. Telling them to wait isn't saving innocent civilians and children from dying. It "what if no one died" is great if no one is dying or being exploited. By the way if slaves didn't die in the Us but they still had slavery would that be okay?

Who was dying in Ireland in 1916?? People dying of natural causes? There was no slavery, no shelling, no starvation. No innocent civilians or children were being killed by the British: Irish people had the same right to vote as those in Britain, i.e. all men over 29. The comparison to US slavery is ludicrous, the last slaves in Ireland were owned by the Celts.

round tower huntsman

he died cos he refused to comply with the criminalisation policy of the british goverment,he'd rather die then be labled a criminal..............a criminalisation policy that his comrades in psf are quite happy to endorse today, oh the irony.
a true irish patriot.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Lets agree to disagree, ISAW , you seem to distort every question and point made to you and leave questions unanswered when it suits.

Lets not! Her is the claim:

-most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence

can you support the claim?
Which countries make up this "most"?
and when you cant support the claim please don't attack me for bring that to your attention.
I dod not claim -most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence did I?

ISAW

CrankyCod wrote: »

Who was dying in Ireland in 1916??

The people in the GPO?

Moind yu the British shot a good few of them and put the boot in as usual didn't they? But given a war was going on they waited till after 1918 to really put the boot in with Balck and Tans and Volunteers. No violence??? You must be kidding!

People dying of natural causes? There was no slavery, no shelling, no starvation.

the entire city centre was flattened by British shells in 1916 alone!
http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1f/Sackville_Street_(Dublin)_after_the_1916_Easter_Rising.JPG/220px-Sackville_Street_(Dublin)_after_the_1916_Easter_Rising.JPG

No innocent civilians or children were being killed by the British: Irish people had the same right to vote as those in Britain, i.e. all men over 29. The comparison to US slavery is ludicrous, the last slaves in Ireland were owned by the Celts.

Rubbish! catholics didn't get the vote till 1829! After that ist was much like Northern Ireland a hundred years later! In the 1820-1840s there were a series of famines and people DID starve! Slavery existed under cromwell and children were sent as slaves to the Carribean wher Irish white slaves outnumbered all populations (not just of slaves but of English Spanish French etc.) with the exception of American natives.

And Black and Tans burned Balbrigggan and Cork to name just two places. There is quite a long list.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Care to list the countries? And then we will see if there was no violence involved in the British being in them and using them to maintain an Empire?

so which is "most of" the British empire? We can exclude Ireland and begin woith other countries so how about listing these countries?



Oh so Ireland is trodden on by the British empire and then they decide to give it independence but the fact that partition caused a civil War has nothing to do with Britain?
Come on?

You see ISAW you are misinterpreting what I said yet again, lets get this straight , I never said there was no violence involved in creating maintaining and holding on to the British Empire, We were discussing a very narrow,what if scenario and whereby what was acceptable in the 19th century was not acceptable in the 20th and that like the rest of the empire those that wanted independance got it. Ireland would have been no different.

What had been a trickle in the 50's turned into a flood in the 60's after Macmillan's ''wind of change '' speech in S.Africa in 1960. Britain could'nt divest herself fast enough. I fully agree that there was conflict in many of these regions afterwards , most directly caused or supressed by the Empire that were now free to explode. But I am making the point that the British (and French) mindset had changed. If you want a list go to wikipedia , all there, maps and all.


I have no doubts we would have gained independence sooner rather than later , quiet simply because of the much overlooked fact of Lloyd George's 1908 old age pension Act, whereby for the very first time Ireland would be on the debit side rather than the credit to the British Exchequer.

Same reason Ireland will be eventually united, not because of guns and bombs and rhetoric but because of money.

As soon as the Empire began to cost Britain got shut of it in short order.

Clinton was right ''its the economy, stupid'' -it always is

KeithAFC

Same reason Ireland will be eventually united, not because of guns and bombs and rhetoric but because of money.

A United Ireland if it ever does happen will only happen if it is voted for. Not because of money.

Can'tseeme

marienbad wrote: »

I dont justify it or not justify it. It Happened, could we have gained independance any other way ? possibly but we can never know, but was I do know is that what was deemed necessary in 1916 is not acceptable in 2016.

I agree with that. I'd like to add what happened in the North in 1969 was also deemed necessary due to the horrible circumstance Nationalists where living in at that time. What we have now is power sharing and the ideals and structures of the GFA which means we can move on in peace.

Just an observation: We Irish don't half do a lot of soul searching, questioning, debating, falling out, tearing ourselves apart over the rights and wrongs of the violence used throughtout Irelands history for independence, freedom from oppression, etc. Do British folk question themselves in a similar way we do, over what British imperialism, state forces, etc did in Ireland?

CrankyCod

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Just an observation: We Irish don't half do a lot of soul searching, questioning, debating, falling out, tearing ourselves apart over the rights and wrongs of the violence used throughtout Irelands history for independence, freedom from oppression, etc. Do British folk question themselves in a similar way we do, over what British imperialism, state forces, etc did in Ireland?

Not on your nelly: most of them have no idea of it. They make a fetish out of their poppies every November, and rarely distinguish between those who fought just wars against Nazism etc and those who fought against freedom movements in Ireland, Malaysia and other hotspots. Even well-educated liberal English people still have very little idea of the conduct of the Black and Tans in Ireland. I sometimes help out on a historical walking tour and am constantly amazed that English people don't accept our story about the burning of Cork by British forces.

Ulysses Gaze

CrankyCod wrote: »

Not on your nelly: most of them have no idea of it. They make a fetish out of their poppies every November, and rarely distinguish between those who fought just wars against Nazism etc and those who fought against freedom movements in Ireland, Malaysia and other hotspots. Even well-educated liberal English people still have very little idea of the conduct of the Black and Tans in Ireland. I sometimes help out on a historical walking tour and am constantly amazed that English people don't accept our story about the burning of Cork by British forces.

Cromwell the same. Considered a hero over in the UK.

I remember telling English folk about Cromwell and Drogheda and their jaws dropped.

A mate of mine here watched Michael Collins recently and I gave him Tim Pat Coogans biogrpahy of Collins and when he'd finished he turned to me and said

'No wonder the Irish fcking hated us!'

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

You see ISAW you are misinterpreting what I said yet again, lets get this straight , I never said there was no violence involved in creating maintaining and holding on to the British Empire,

what you stated was -

most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence

can you support that claim?
Which countries make up this "most"?

We were discussing a very narrow,what if scenario and whereby what was acceptable in the 19th century was not acceptable in the 20th and that like the rest of the empire those that wanted independance got it. Ireland would have been no different.

No we weren't and you are tryintg to change the topic to that now!
You claimed:
most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence
can you support that claim?
Which countries make up this "most"?

What had been a trickle in the 50's turned into a flood in the 60's after Macmillan's ''wind of change '' speech in S.Africa in 1960. Britain could'nt divest herself fast enough. I fully agree that there was conflict in many of these regions afterwards , most directly caused or supressed by the Empire that were now free to explode.

so how does that fit with most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence?

You are contradicting yourself!

But I am making the point that the British (and French) mindset had changed. If you want a list go to wikipedia , all there, maps and all.

Im not discussing mindset on this particular point the point is most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence?
YOUR point. You made it!

Snip the "what if"

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

what you stated was -

can you support that claim?
Which countries make up this "most"?



No we weren't and you are tryintg to change the topic to that now!
You claimed:
most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence
can you support that claim?
Which countries make up this "most"?



so how does that fit with most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence?

You are contradicting yourself!



Im not discussing mindset on this particular point the point is most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence?
YOUR point. You made it!

Snip the "what if"

Hello ISAW, as I said earlier , lets just agree to disagree, you don't really seem interested in any discussion , just point scoring against imaginary targets.

By the way I am still waiting for an answer on the nationality of children born in Ireland of foreign nationals, Are they Irish ? yes no ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello ISAW, as I said earlier , lets just agree to disagree,

And As I said earlier let's not!

The thread is about what Bobby sands died for.
You are saying most of the British Empire achieved independence with little or not violence and the Republic of Ireland would have come about anyway.

I'm asking yu to support that claim!

you don't really seem interested in any discussion ,

I am very interested in discussion. I am particularly interested in discussing you r claim that most of the British Empire became independent with little or no violence. Care to elaborate?

just point scoring against imaginary targets.

The British Empire was not imaginary!

By the way I am still waiting for an answer on the nationality of children born in Ireland of foreign nationals, Are they Irish ? yes no ?

I suggest you read the reply I offered which wasquite comprehensive.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69972022#post69972022

Up to the last change in the constitution it is automatically YES. After that it is regulated by law which I clearly described. By the way just because a child is a citizen does not mean the parent have right to live in Ireland under Irish law ( unless they are an EU citizen) , however under British law as parents of EU citizens ( which comes by dint of the Child being Irish ) they are entitled to reside in the UK. this is why the law was changed in Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

Amhran Nua

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

A mate of mine here watched Michael Collins recently

I hope it was the 1991 movie with Brendan Gleeson, thats the definitive version in my opinion.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

And As I said earlier let's not!

The thread is about what Bobby sands died for.
You are saying most of the British Empire achieved independence with little or not violence and the Republic of Ireland would have come about anyway.

I'm asking yu to support that claim!


I am very interested in discussion. I am particularly interested in discussing you r claim that most of the British Empire became independent with little or no violence. Care to elaborate?


The British Empire was not imaginary!



I suggest you read the reply I offered which wasquite comprehensive.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69972022#post69972022

Up to the last change in the constitution it is automatically YES. After that it is regulated by law which I clearly described. By the way just because a child is a citizen does not mean the parent have right to live in Ireland under Irish law ( unless they are an EU citizen) , however under British law as parents of EU citizens ( which comes by dint of the Child being Irish ) they are entitled to reside in the UK. this is why the law was changed in Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

So some people born in ireland are not Irish then, correct ??

Wolfe Tone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I hope it was the 1991 movie with Brendan Gleeson, thats the definitive version in my opinion.

Never seen that one,but if it is as inaccurate as the newer one.....

Nehaxak

Nah, the definitive version for me was told through the Preacher comic book, when the Irish vampire Cassidy kicked Michael Collins in the balls and told him to fk off :pac:

RandomName2

ISAW wrote: »

most of the British Empire gained independance with little or no violence
can you support that claim?


Which countries make up this "most"?

Egypt (except Suez Canal)
Libya
Sudan
Nigeria
India
Canada
South Africa (notwithstanding Boer War)
Rhodesia (notwithstanding political complications)
Malaya
Gold Coast
British Honduras
Guyana
Malta
Gozo
Fiji
Australia
New Zealand

Can't think of any others at the moment.

'England may keep faith when all that is done and said'
The silliness of this item getting into this thread is matched only by talk concerning the European Union.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

So some people born in ireland are not Irish then, correct ??

Since the law legal change people who don't have at least one parent who is Irish do not automatically acquire Irish citizenship unless they have been legally living five years here. they have to apply for it which of course means their parents have to apply for them.

ISAW

RandomName2 wrote: »

Egypt (except Suez Canal)

You mean the bit the French and British Empires both wanted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#20th_century

British influence and increasing political involvement by the king led to the dissolution of the parliament in a military coup d'état known as the 1952 Revolution.

No British involvement?

Libya

Italian! Not British!

Sudan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Independence_and_civil_wars_.281956.E2.80.931989.29

The continued British occupation of Sudan fueled an increasingly strident nationalist backlash in Egypt, with Egyptian nationalist leaders determined to force Britain to recognise a single independent union of Egypt and Sudan. With the formal end of Ottoman rule in 1914, Hussein Kamel was declared Sultan of Egypt and Sudan, as was his brother Fuad I who succeeded him. The insistence of a single Egyptian-Sudanese state persisted when the Sultanate was retitled the Kingdom of Egypt and Sudan, but the British continued to frustrate these efforts. ..
In 1955, the year before independence, a civil war began between Northern and Southern Sudan. The southerners, anticipating independence, feared the new nation would be dominated by the north. Historically, the north of Sudan had closer ties with Egypt and was predominantly Arab and Muslim while the south was predominantly a mixture of Christianity and Animism. These divisions had been further emphasized by the British policy of ruling the north and south under separate administrations

Nigeria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Colonial_era
On January 1, 1901, Nigeria became a British protectorate, part of the British Empire, the foremost world power at the time. Many wars against subjugation had been fought by the states of what later became Nigeria against the British Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Notably of those were the British Conquest of Benin in 1897 and the Anglo-Aro War from 1901—1902. The restraint or complete destruction of these states opened up the Niger area to British rule.

Ill get back to you on the rest.

'England may keep faith when all that is done and said'
The silliness of this item getting into this thread is matched only by talk concerning the European Union.

so my suggestion of British Rule and gunboat diplomacy is "silly"?

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Egypt (except Suez Canal)
Libya
Sudan
Nigeria
India
Canada
South Africa (notwithstanding Boer War)
Rhodesia (notwithstanding political complications)
Malaya
Gold Coast
British Honduras
Guyana
Malta
Gozo
Fiji
Australia
New Zealand

Can't think of any others at the moment.

'England may keep faith when all that is done and said'
The silliness of this item getting into this thread is matched only by talk concerning the European Union.

You'll find there was widespread violence in India.

Egyptian indepencence was initially gained after the revolt of 1919 which was against the occupation of both Egypt and Sudan, and cemented by the revolution of 1952.

Libya was primarily an ottoman then an italian colony, the British only being there about 8-9 years, as a consequence of WWII.

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is an odd case, because the white minority colonists declared independence to avoid having to share power with the African majority, who then started a military campaign against them, which eventually drove the white regime to the negotiating table.

Fratton Fred

RandomName2 wrote: »

Egypt (except Suez Canal)
Libya
Sudan
Nigeria
India
Canada
South Africa (notwithstanding Boer War)
Rhodesia (notwithstanding political complications)
Malaya
Gold Coast
British Honduras
Guyana
Malta
Gozo
Fiji
Australia
New Zealand

Can't think of any others at the moment.

'England may keep faith when all that is done and said'
The silliness of this item getting into this thread is matched only by talk concerning the European Union.

You missed out Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad, Tobago, etc etc.