That's the difference.
That's the difference.
Right. Ethnic Russians live to the east of the Dniester river in Moldova and they want to break away, but aren't allowed to. Ethnic Russians live in the eastern Ukraine, but no chance of becoming part of Russia.
Ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro all live together, mostly near the Serb border, but partition of those countries wasn't allowed.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The war in Bosnia is the perfect example of the failure of multiculturalism.
It is not racist to be concerned about immigration.
Yes, I believe in the territotial integrity of nations.
Your hypothetical point is not comparing like with like. We are discussing the situation of States retaining control over parts of countries when they are granted independence, due to the democratic wish of people in that country to remain part of the state granting independence.
Bradford has not been under Pakistani Government control, as far as I am aware. Ergo, Pakistan's Government has nothing to do with Bradford.
Your whole argument is absurd, and it's let down by bias.
For a start, you know little about Ireland. Did you know that the first vote on Irish unity with Britain in the Dublin parliament was voted against? An all protestant parliament - many of whom were descended from Scots and English. The second vote may have been passed, but there were many dissenters, including Orangemen.
So moving on to independence in 1921. It wasn't independence that worried them, but the prospect of Catholics being in charge. It was always about control.
Secondly, Ireland had it's first all-Ireland parliament in 1264. Even following unity with Britain, Ireland (like Scotland) kept it's own legal system, education, churce, banks. The nationalists wanted independence for the whole of Ireland. The majority agreed, a minority didn't, and a chunk of their nation was sliced off.
You do not believe in the territorial integrity of nations.
Likewise, if people wanted independence for Munster, I'm sure the British would have rejected it, rightly saying that it was only a part of the kingdom of Ireland.
Legally, they could only campaign for the secession of the kingdom of Ireland. It was the British who acted inappropriately.
I do believe in terratorial integrity. Its simply easier to retain part of a State when granting independence (N Ireland) than it is for a bunch of people to suddenly decide they want to be governed by somewhere else.
It is you nationalist bias that is clouding YOUR argument.
One of the main arguments for Irish independence was that it was wrong for a country to be governed by a country that the majority did not want to be governed by. The same case applies to Northern Ireland.