No2Atheism:

- I hope you know that significant parts of Kogi and Kwara are part of the Yoruba territories . . .

- For all he's faults, becomerich actually makes sense with a number of his geographical analysis. . .


- That is exactly what i have been talking about . . .

- The whole of Africa needs to be reshuffled . . .

- Africa is expriencing problems as a result of the initial creation of countries by forcing together different Nations under one name . . . e.g. Hutu, Tutsi, Fulani, Kanuri, Yoruba, Ibo, etc. . .

- Africa would always have problems of development cus those nations would always be figthing against each other . . .

- Hence the only way to accelerate Africa's growth is if all African countries come together to re-create new countries based solely on similar cultures . . . for example:


Yorubas can then form a nationa consisting from their people all the way from Kwara, Kogi up to Areas of Togo and Benin and even Ghana (yes I heard from a Ghanian that there are even people with Yoruba culture in Ghana) . . . (this is part of the reason why I think Becomrich sometimes makes sense, cus what I am saying is actualy similar to what he tries to say albeit in a rather repetitive and sometimes disjointed manner)

This concept is known to work as can be easily seen from how Yoruba land was developed during the first republic of when Nigeria was still operating as semi-autonomous regions . . .

I get your message but why not look at the case of Europe and America. The US is made up of several tribes but they believe in one America first. The economic and political power lies in their size. Do you think the US would be as powerful as it is today if is was split into several countries - Jewish, Negro, Italian, Korean, Hispanic, English, Irish, etc. These tribes come from several continents but they still believe in one nation. Now look at the European countries who have had to join forces so as to be able to compete with America. The French and English fought two great wars against the germans but all three are the backbone of the EU.

I think it is too late to start re-drawing the African landscape. I have a lot more in common with Igbos, Ijaw, Ibibio, etc than I do with Yorubas in Togo, Benin. The only thing that I may share with the Yoruba in other countries is the Language. Several individuals may be for or against the idea of a Southern Nigerian but I think it is necessary to conduct some sort of referendum. The majority vote of each tribe should prevail. From the actions of some Northerners, one can conclude that the North equally does not want to be part of Nigeria.

er, Will this new Southern Nigeria give up all claims to the off-shore oil as a condition to seceed? If not, what's the suggestion for how to share it? What about future off-shore oil finds, how do we share that.

Will this new country take full control of all the major ports, in Lagos, Warri, and others?

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Split the thing into Niger Delta, Odua & Biafra each with 100% resource control.

This republic of South Nigeria feels too much like from frying pan to fire.

SapeleGuy:

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Split the thing into Niger Delta, Odua & Biafra each with 100% resource control.

This republic of South Nigeria feels too much like from frying pan to fire.

100% resource control, ko? Which region will control offshore oil, and the port?

ndu_chucks:

er, Will this new Southern Nigeria give up all claims to the off-shore oil as a condition to seceed? If not, what's the suggestion for how to share it? What about future off-shore oil finds, how do we share that.

Will this new country take full control of all the major ports, in Lagos, Warri, and others?  

Whilst I am not advocating for spliting the country, I see where you are going with this and I will respond accordingly. If Nigeria breaks up either into two parts or several parts, then the North can not have any ownership of any ports or off-shore oil. Why does Niger republic not claim ownership of our ports or off-shore oil? It is ludicrous to even think that the North will have access to anything. If it happens, then the North will have to pay for goods and services. This was the same sort of thinking exhibited by Jubril Aminu many years ago when he advocated that the North will have access to the Atlantic ocean if Nigeria breaks. Where in the world have you heard of a nation without access to the sea having a sea port or navy? Or do you suppose that a Northern Navy will be based at Lagos, Calabar or PH?

@Katsumoto
The nOrTH will have access to the atlantic ocean through the SAHARA DESERT

Katsumoto:

Whilst I am not advocating for spliting the country, I see where you are going with this and I will respond accordingly. If Nigeria breaks up either into two parts or several parts, then the North can not have any ownership of any ports or off-shore oil. Why does Niger republic not claim ownership of our ports or off-shore oil? It is ludicrous to even think that the North will have access to anything. If it happens, then the North will have to pay for goods and services. This was the same sort of thinking exhibited by Jubril Aminu many years ago when he advocated that the North will have access to the Atlantic ocean if Nigeria breaks. Where in the world have you heard of a nation without access to the sea having a sea port or navy? Or do you suppose that a Northern Navy will be based at Lagos, Calabar or PH?

Katsumoto, Jubril Aminu's thinking has nothing whatsoever with my questions.  My questions were designed to make people think of practical ways of accomplishing the so-called Federal Republic of South Nigeria.

If Nigeria breaks up either into two parts or several parts, then the[b] North can not have any ownership of any ports or off-shore oil.[/b]

As a practical matter, the South Nigeria republic cannot exist in the manner you described above without the North being defeated in another civil war. Note that the ports and off-shore resources were developed by instruments collectively owned by Nigeria - all regions of Nigeria.   A negotiated sharing of those resources is the only thing that could work, in my view, without a war.  

Trust me, the North will never agree to the scenario you described without a war. The question is, are we ready for another civil war? If not, honest negotiations are the only way out.

@Bishopking

Only a dummy like you will think that  my flag is evil,since when has the blue colors of the ocean represent evil.Have your brain re-examined to see if it is functioning properly.Better still design your own flag and paste it here and i mean DESIGN dont just steal a flag somehwhere and paste it.Design your own from scratch ,mumu.

The North will become significantly poorer due to this break up. Biafra too will be poor as hell. Infact this will lead to significant poverty- sigh man africa never learn

SEFAGO:

The North will become significantly poorer due to this break up. Biafra too will be poor as hell. Infact this will lead to significant poverty- sigh man africa never learn

@SEFAGO: You are very wrong man.  It is the nations that can consistently produce good leaders like Lee Kuan Yew,  in a good and conducive leadership environment that will succeed.
It is not the amount of resources or geographical location.
For instance:
If the North can produce alot of Fasholas/Donald Dukes and the Southern countries produce many Alao Akalas/ T. Orjis, the South's crude oil will be refined in the north because there may be no refinery in the south due to mismanagement, thereby making the south dependent on the North, despite the lack of oil in the North.

It is the ability to carve out good leadership that matters.

ndu_chucks:

Katsumoto, Jubril Aminu's thinking has nothing whatsoever with my questions.  My questions were designed to make people think of practical ways of accomplishing the so-called Federal Republic of South Nigeria.

As a practical matter, the South Nigeria republic cannot exist in the manner you described above without the North being defeated in another civil war. Note that the ports and off-shore resources were developed by instruments collectively owned by Nigeria - all regions of Nigeria.   A negotiated sharing of those resources is the only thing that could work, in my view, without a war.  

Trust me, the North will never agree to the scenario you described without a war. The question is, are we ready for another civil war? If not, honest negotiations are the only way out.

You can not share what does not belong to you. If Nigeria splits into three Regions, the North or West will not have any share of the resources in the Niger Delta. I am confident that the Yorubas will find other sources of revenue; the North should do the same.

This is not 1966; the North can not fight a southern Nigeria or wage several campaigns against Biafra and Odua. Even a retard knows that the North will be comprehensively defeated. Do not for one second think that the North can use WAR as a threat against Southern Nigeria.

There is nothing practical about your suggestion. Your suggestion is analogous to the practice of paying homage to superior kingdoms in ancient times. The North is not superior to either a combined Southern Nigeria or a split southern Nigeria with a common goal and enemy.

If the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because or resource control and access to the ocean, then I think we should start preparing ourselves for this break-up either peacefully or violently. I never advocate violence as a means of resolving issues but do not for one second think that we will be afraid to fight if it boils down to it.

SEFAGO:

The North will become significantly poorer due to this break up. Biafra too will be poor as hell. Infact this will lead to significant poverty- sigh man africa never learn

Why do you say that?

Katsumoto:

Why do you say that?

I was surprised to see that too, but aint in a mood to argue, it may turn tribalistic.

ndu_chucks:

er, Will this new Southern Nigeria give up all claims to the off-shore oil as a condition to seceed? If not, what's the suggestion for how to share it? What about future off-shore oil finds, how do we share that.

Will this new country take full control of all the major ports, in Lagos, Warri, and others?  

As much as you and I have battled each other in the past over issues with little respect for each others opinion, I think your question here makes absolute sense. The issues you raised are really what keeps Nigeria one, not love of the country or a shared collection of values or goals. So, any talk of restructuring or partitioning of the country MUST address them to everyone's satisfaction for this to happen without a war. The sooner people become realistic about that the better.
Those must be addressed in an exhaustive conference. I don't believe anyone wants a war in Nigeria, therefore people must not make unreasonable demands.

Katsumoto:

If the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because or resource control and access to the ocean, then I think we should start preparing ourselves for this break-up either peacefully or violently. I never advocate violence as a means of resolving issues but do not for one second think that we will be afraid to fight if it boils down to it.

I simply asked a question as to how the oil and ports will be divided and also pointed out that I believe your response can only come to pass if the North is defeated in a civil war.  We can agree to disagree on the issue.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because of resource control and access to the ocean. I think that idea is quite myopic - you certainly didn't get that idea from me.

What do you guys think of this map?

Katsumoto:

You can not share what does not belong to you. If Nigeria splits into three Regions, the North or West will not have any share of the resources in the Niger Delta. I am confident that the Yorubas will find other sources of revenue; the North should do the same.

This is not 1966; the North can not fight a southern Nigeria or wage several campaigns against Biafra and Odua. Even a retard knows that the North will be comprehensively defeated. Do not for one second think that the North can use WAR as a threat against Southern Nigeria.

There is nothing practical about your suggestion. Your suggestion is analogous to the practice of paying homage to superior kingdoms in ancient times. The North is not superior to either a combined Southern Nigeria or a split southern Nigeria with a common goal and enemy.

If the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because or resource control and access to the ocean, then I think we should start preparing ourselves for this break-up either peacefully or violently. I never advocate violence as a means of resolving issues but do not for one second think that we will be afraid to fight if it boils down to it.

I totally agree with you here.

The North will become significantly poorer due to this break up. Biafra too will be poor as hell. Infact this will lead to significant poverty- sigh man africa never learn

First things first- when you divide the countries it will take time for each region to develop its diplomatic relations, its trading partners, what it drives its economy. An economy must be yielding money immediately- we are no more in the 1900s- we are in a globalized age; you sink quickly if you are not organized. Supposed autonomy isn't going to change much mate. I doubt the economic feasibility of any divided Nigerian nation-state. Oil companies would be skeptical about dealing with a new government.

Basically the main assumption here is that the different nation-states would adjust accordingly within a short span of their "independence" to become economically viable states.  It is possible that maybe 1 or 2 become successful but hmm quite a gamble.

Onlytruth:

As much as you and I have battled each other in the past over issues with little respect for each others opinion, I think your question here makes absolute sense. The issues you raised are really what keeps Nigeria one, not love of the country or a shared collection of values or goals. So, any talk of restructuring or partitioning of the country MUST address them to everyone's satisfaction for this to happen without a war. The sooner people become realistic about that the better.
Those must be addressed in an exhaustive conference. I don't believe anyone wants a war in Nigeria, therefore people must not make unreasonable demands.

Wonders shall never end, who would have thought Onlytruth and I can ever agree on anything?  We can romanticize the idea of breaking up the country all we want - it will not happen peacefully unless these issues are carefully negotiated.

My believe is that we are better of as ONE nation but we must carryout exhaustive negotiatiations as you stated, to determine the way forward. The status quo is unacceptable.

ndu_chucks:

I simply asked a question as to how the oil and ports will be divided and also pointed out that I believe your response can only come to pass if the North is defeated in a civil war.  We can agree to disagree on the issue.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because of resource control and access to the ocean. I think that idea is quite myopic - you certainly didn't get that idea from me.  

It is a view that is generally shared in the south because of what has prevailed in Nigeria. Secondly, why did you ask how resources would be shared and how the North would have access to the ocean. The idea is myopic and I did get it from you because of your allusions. Afterall, you did ask the questions about off-shore oil and ports access.

I reiterate again that, you can not share what does not belong to you. Only Sovereign nations with access to the sea or ocean have ports and navies. If the off-shore oil you refer to is with the territorial waters of a sovereign nation, then it belongs only to that Nation and not its neighbours regardless of whether they previously co-existed in one nation.

ndu_chucks:

er, Will this new Southern Nigeria give up all claims to the off-shore oil as a condition to seceed? If not, what's the suggestion for how to share it? What about future off-shore oil finds, how do we share that.

Will this new country take full control of all the major ports, in Lagos, Warri, and others?

You are a disappointment. How could you fathom this carp? Do you not understand the meaning of territorial integrity? I know at times you are off the pedal but not this bad.

SEFAGO:

The North will become significantly poorer due to this break up. Biafra too will be poor as hell. Infact this will lead to significant poverty- sigh man africa never learn

I wonder how you reached that conclusion. The first thing you must know is that a Biafra well negotiated will likely be the richest if not immediately, it will ultimately. The Biafra will have immediate yearly grant of about $2b dollars from a heavily committed diaspora, which will increase as time goes on (much like what Jewish diaspora do for Israel). Then, the enormous human resources will kick in. No quota system, no federal character. Before you know it, the economy will simply explode. Oil proceeds will contribute less than 10% of the revenue. You can choose to believe otherwise.

Katsumoto:

I reiterate again that, you can not share what does not belong to you. Only Sovereign nations with access to the sea or ocean have ports and navies. If the off-shore oil you refer to is with the territorial waters of a sovereign nation, then it belongs only to that Nation and not its neighbours regardless of whether they previously co-existed in one nation.

The topic of this thread is hypothetical, so are my questions. Don't read too much into things.

As you stated only sovereign nations have access to territorial waters, well the North is currently part of Nigeria and some of their resources, human or otherwise were used to develop the ports. To carve out a region out of Nigeria, and tell the North or any other region,  - get lost, you no longer have access to the ports and some other resources, the development of which they contributed, without some sort of negotiated settlement, in my view is foolhardy.

Onlytruth:

As much as you and I have battled each other in the past over issues with little respect for each others opinion, I think your question here makes absolute sense. The issues you raised are really what keeps Nigeria one, not love of the country or a shared collection of values or goals. So, any talk of restructuring or partitioning of the country MUST address them to everyone's satisfaction for this to happen without a war. The sooner people become realistic about that the better.
Those must be addressed in an exhaustive conference. I don't believe anyone wants a war in Nigeria, therefore people must not make unreasonable demands.

I understand what you are saying but do you honestly think that any independent nation will 'bribe' another nation with its resources simply because it wants to avoid war. The discussions may centre on bilateral relations, co-operation, and economic agreements. Even if these agreements are reached and the regions separate, do you think that subsequent leaders of the southern regions will keep honouring such agreements? If the south south becomes a country of its own, will Biafra permit Northern forces to advance through its territories to go and battle the south south people?

Dede1:

You are a disappointment. How could you fathom this carp? Do you not understand the meaning of territorial integrity? I know at times you are off the pedal but not this bad.

What crap? The questions I asked must be answered to the satisfaction of all parties if this hypothetical country is to come to fruition peacefully.  They are hard questions, no doubt. Your implied answer will not be acceptable to all parties, rendering your dream nation, just that.

ndu_chucks:

The topic of this thread is hypothetical, so are my questions. Don't read too much into things.

As you stated only sovereign nations have access to territorial waters, well the North is currently part of Nigeria and some of their resources, human or otherwise were used to develop the ports. To carve out a region out of Nigeria, and tell the North or any other region,  - get lost, you no longer have access to the ports and some other resources, the development of which they contributed, without some sort of negotiated settlement, in my view is foolhardy.

Ok, the North will get a discount on goods and services.   

Katsumoto:

Ok, the North will get a discount on goods and services.

Katsumoto:

I understand what you are saying but do you honestly think that any independent nation will 'bribe' another nation with its resources simply because it wants to avoid war. The discussions may centre on bilateral relations, co-operation, and economic agreements. Even if these agreements are reached and the regions separate, do you think that subsequent leaders of the southern regions will keep honouring such agreements? If the south south becomes a country of its own, will Biafra permit Northern forces to advance through its territories to go and battle the south south people?

The question is predicated on the assumption that the north will need to go through a Biafra to get to a Niger delta republic. There is no available evidence to suggest that Biafra will be entirely Igbo. The original Biafra wasn't and chances are the next one won't be. I say that because south south is not united enough to form a country.

Katsumoto:

You can not share what does not belong to you. If Nigeria splits into three Regions, the North or West will not have any share of the resources in the Niger Delta. I am confident that the Yorubas will find other sources of revenue; the North should do the same.

This is not 1966; the North can not fight a southern Nigeria or wage several campaigns against Biafra and Odua. Even a retard knows that the North will be comprehensively defeated. Do not for one second think that the North can use WAR as a threat against Southern Nigeria.

There is nothing practical about your suggestion. Your suggestion is analogous to the practice of paying homage to superior kingdoms in ancient times. The North is not superior to either a combined Southern Nigeria or a split southern Nigeria with a common goal and enemy.

If the concept of Nigeria only appeals to the North because or resource control and access to the ocean, then I think we should start preparing ourselves for this break-up either peacefully or violently. I never advocate violence as a means of resolving issues but do not for one second think that we will be afraid to fight if it boils down to it.

You are spot-on about the allege war between North and South. It will not take the shape of Biafra versus Nigeria war.

Maybe the negotiable aspect of North/South division of Nigeria is access to the sea ports. It may come with heavy tariff.

ndu_chucks:

The topic of this thread is hypothetical, so are my questions. Don't read too much into things.

As you stated only sovereign nations have access to territorial waters, well the North is currently part of Nigeria and some of their resources, human or otherwise were used to develop the ports. To carve out a region out of Nigeria, and tell the North or any other region,  - get lost, you no longer have access to the ports and some other resources, the development of which they contributed, without some sort of negotiated settlement, in my view is foolhardy.

Edit:

- How exactly did the North contribute. . .or when did a national resource become a point of compensation . . . does that mean other regions have to be compensated for Abuja. . . and other physical infrasstructure constructed in the North even though the North brings little to the table in terms of Revenue, or Professional Man Power . . .

- The north did not contribute to the coast . . . Nigeria did . . .

- The contribution of Nigeria is in terms of development of what is already there . . . ie. Nigeria did not create the coast instead Nigeria just developed the coast.

- It seems you are implying that the North needs to be compensated for the Ports or something . . .

- The bottom line is that if and when nigeria breaks up, Niger-Delta and Yorubas can decide whatever they want as regards to the ports and the coast . . . just as the same way as The south does not really give a damn about what happens to Abuja . . .

Does Niger Delta have the right to claim ownership of roads and physical infrastructure constructed in the North based on the fact that most of the resources for such came from Oil which in turn came predominantly from Niger Delta.

Does Lagos state have the right to claim ownership of public property in other states based on the fact that Taxes generated from those states form a substantial part of revenue being shared amongst other states in Nigeria.

So you see its very ridiculous to even suggest that one region deserves compensation for the developement by Nigeria (as a whole) of a natural resource or artificial resource in another region.

- Implying the North needs to be compensated for the ports is almost like saying that The South needs to be compensated for using the bulk of revenue generated from the South to build, develop and sustain Abuja . . . its ludicrous to even say that or make sure a pronouncement. . . .

- There is no compensation nothing nada . . . once Nigeria breaks up . . .its every man to he's tent . . . nobody compensates anybody . . .

- Infact talking of compensation . . . the North deserves to return looted funds running into billions of dollars to the South and then apologise for stealing money that was generated from the South and supposed to be used for the development of Nigeria as a whole. . . There are also corrupt individuals in the South, hence why the issue of compensation for stolen money is ludicrous when considered in the context of break-up of Nigeria.

- Other than having a sense of ownership of other regions of Nigeria . . . it is ridiculous for anyone to even say that any other region deserves compensation for a public facility situated in another region . . . Hence to my understanding, its only someone who has a superiority complex and misguided sense of ownership of another region, that would even expect to be compensated for something that was never his in the first place.

- Those public facilities were developed underr the name Nigeria and not under the name of any region hence no region has th right to claim compensation for something that was never its property in the first place.

- Ndu_Chucks are you sure you are who you claim to be . . .cus the more i think about this your statement that more i am worried as to mindset that would make you make such a statement of saying one region needs to compensate another region for a public property located in the former region.

Onlytruth:

The question is predicated on the assumption that the north will need to go through a Biafra to get to a Niger delta republic. There is no available evidence to suggest that Biafra will be entirely Igbo. The original Biafra wasn't and chances are the next one won't be. I say that because south south is not united enough to form a country.

It was a predicated on the assumption that there will be several rebiblics in the south. It is not a firegone conclusion that the Niger delta will be part of Biafra; however, I agree that it could happen that Biafra is made up of Igbo and ND. That is obviously a question for the ND people.

Since I am not advocating the break-up of Nigeria YET, I can not propose what the constituents parts of any future republics may be.

This will hardly happen  but Amen to this division. Arewa can only regain its glory by this division. It is clear we have been excessively been corrupted by the south to the point that we could surpass them at it. Yet one can only pray and hope. <sigh>