Reply to: Decades of instability, violence on the streets

[Old Greg]

It's not faux outrage - it's pointing out the arrogance of referring to a territory that does not consider itself that (at least going by their elected Chief Minister's statement and their referenda results).

By some stretch, definition 1 of 'colony' could even include Commonwealth realms that voluntarily choose to retain a link with the crown.


No, simply pointed out what's commonly understood by the word


Legal residents with voting rights as per local law, citizens - naturalised or by ancestry. Those who live and work there and have a stake in its future. In my view anyway...
Same principle as applied in the Scottish referendum.

[GreenMirror]

I thought Gibraltar was the best place for executing IRA members.

[meridian]

It's not faux outrage - it's pointing out the arrogance of referring to a territory that does not consider itself that (at least going by their elected Chief Minister's statement and their referenda results).

It is faux if you are more concerned about a word than about deeds and actions. FWIW, Gibraltar doesn't consider themselves to be a colony, but that's nothing to do with the (current) Chief Minister.

By some stretch, definition 1 of 'colony' could even include Commonwealth realms that voluntarily choose to retain a link with the crown.

Yes, according to that definition in the link you provided. It's your link, so if that's the way you want to interpret it then go for it.

No, simply pointed out what's commonly understood by the word

If it was commonly understood to have that meaning, it would be in a dictionary? You're the one that wanted to provide dictionary links and a challenge to point out which one applies to Gibraltar, so it's your turn now: provide a dictionary link with your "commonly understood" definition.

Legal residents with voting rights as per local law, citizens - naturalised or by ancestry. Those who live and work there and have a stake in its future. In my view anyway...
Same principle as applied in the Scottish referendum.

Do you know what "native" means, in this context?

[yetanotherbob]

I was more interested in your faux outrage at someone calling it a colony, rather than any outrage at the UK treating it as a colony.

It's not faux outrage - it's pointing out the arrogance of referring to a territory that does not consider itself that (at least going by their elected Chief Minister's statement and their referenda results).

By some stretch, definition 1 of 'colony' could even include Commonwealth realms that voluntarily choose to retain a link with the crown.

Have you made this definition up?

No, simply pointed out what's commonly understood by the word

(Sidenote: who are the native people of Gibraltar?)

Legal residents with voting rights as per local law, citizens - naturalised or by ancestry. Those who live and work there and have a stake in its future. In my view anyway...
Same principle as applied in the Scottish referendum.

[meridian]

Decades of instability, violence on the streets

Colony | Define Colony at Dictionary.com
Does Gibraltar fit this definition?

Yes, number 3 clearly.

The point is the word colony has a negative connotation suggesting foreign rule against the native peoples' will, which doesn't seem to be the case with Gibraltar

I agree that it has negative connotations. Presumably that’s why the U.K. decided to stop using the word for its overseas territories in 1983. Suggesting foreign rule against the native population’s will is not the only definition though, it’s just the one that you’ve chosen and it’s not even part of the dictionary link you gave above. Have you made this definition up? (Sidenote: who are the native people of Gibraltar?)

I really don’t care what it’s called, though. I was more interested in your faux outrage at someone calling it a colony, rather than any outrage at the UK treating it as a colony.

[yetanotherbob]

Next time I won't ask you for your opinion on the difference, I'll ask you for the factual difference...

Colony | Define Colony at Dictionary.com
Does Gibraltar fit this definition?

The point is the word colony has a negative connotation suggesting foreign rule against the native peoples' will, which doesn't seem to be the case with Gibraltar

[meridian]

Follow the money.

Colony ---> money ---> Metropolis

Overseas Territory <--- money <--- Metropolis

Usage of word "colony" was incorrect in relation to Gibraltar.

Next time I won't ask you for your opinion on the difference, I'll ask you for the factual difference...

[AtW]

Follow the money.

Colony ---> money ---> Metropolis

Overseas Territory <--- money <--- Metropolis

Usage of word "colony" was incorrect in relation to Gibraltar.

[meridian]

A colony is a place from which valuables are plundered for the benefit of the whoever owns it.

An Overseas territory is tax evasion vehicle which plunders tax revenues from all over the world, including the territory which supposedly owns it.

On that basis Spain is incorrect both technically and in the spirit.

HTH

Prior to 1983 the territories were called British Crown Colonies. The name was changed then changed to British Dependent Territory, and in 2002 changed again to British Overseas Territory. The only difference (apart from the name) is that the residents automatically became full British citizens. Gibraltar already had that, though, so the only effective difference for Gibraltarians is that the name changed.

Technically, the term "colony" is only incorrect because it is outdated and has been superseded as a descriptive term in legislation. Practically there is no other difference.

Seems they review this periodically and the latest working paper isn't accessible.
But from the list I can see the UN has its priorities right.

It's quite unfortunate actually - there are territories in the world held by heavy military force whose people overwhelmingly want their independence. And yet, Pitcairn gets UN priority for decolonisation

Not relevant. You were clearly wrong to say that Gibraltar is "fully self-governing".

[yetanotherbob]

The United Nations and Decolonization - Committee of 24 - Non-Self-Governing Territories
Gibraltar is still on the list for decolonization. Simple UN fact.

Seems they review this periodically and the latest working paper isn't accessible.
But from the list I can see the UN has its priorities right.

It's quite unfortunate actually - there are territories in the world held by heavy military force whose people overwhelmingly want their independence. And yet, Pitcairn gets UN priority for decolonisation

[AtW]

What, in your opinion, is the technical difference? ;-)

A colony is a place from which valuables are plundered for the benefit of the whoever owns it.

An Overseas territory is tax evasion vehicle which plunders tax revenues from all over the world, including the territory which supposedly owns it.

On that basis Spain is incorrect both technically and in the spirit.

HTH

[meridian]

Nah, it was Colony then, now it is Overseas territory

What, in your opinion, is the technical difference? ;-)

[meridian]

They might have been perceived as a colony because of the history.
After the second world war, the world community/UN agreed on a framework of decolonisation for such territories. That's how past members of the British empire became independent - some chose full independence, others became self governing commonwealth realms, yet others but very few chose to not opt for independence at all.

The Gibraltar referendum of 1967 was part of that global wave of decolonisation and Gibraltar chose to remain British.
"Principle of consent".


What matters is how the residents of Gibraltar choose to define themselves - that they do not or no longer see themselves as a colony is a sufficient condition not to call them a colony.
But as a matter of fact, their 2006 constitution does affirm its status as a fully self-governing territory with specific areas like defence & foreign affairs handled by Britain.


It rather affirmed that they are no longer a colony - they chose to stay with the UK.

You must have a different definition of “self-governing” than that of the United Nations. Can you back up your “matter of fact” with evidence?

The United Nations and Decolonization - Committee of 24 - Non-Self-Governing Territories

Gibraltar is still on the list for decolonization. Simple UN fact.

[yetanotherbob]

So they were a colony before the referendum,

They might have been perceived as a colony because of the history.
After the second world war, the world community/UN agreed on a framework of decolonisation for such territories. That's how past members of the British empire became independent - some chose full independence, others became self governing commonwealth realms, yet others but very few chose to not opt for independence at all.

The Gibraltar referendum of 1967 was part of that global wave of decolonisation and Gibraltar chose to remain British.
"Principle of consent".

and there was no constitutional change after the referendum. Therefore, still a colony after the referendum.

What matters is how the residents of Gibraltar choose to define themselves - that they do not or no longer see themselves as a colony is a sufficient condition not to call them a colony.
But as a matter of fact, their 2006 constitution does affirm its status as a fully self-governing territory with specific areas like defence & foreign affairs handled by Britain.

All the referendum did was reaffirm their colonial status.

It rather affirmed that they are no longer a colony - they chose to stay with the UK.

[AtW]

Nah, it was Colony then, now it is Overseas territory