Marcantilan - first off thank you for not just flaming me outright and instead giving a fair hearing to the data. That is to your credit!
You bring up a very interesting point - the land was given - but not the soveriegnty. I see where your coming from - as the US did land grants during its times of expansion. It very likely is a valid point. So let me ask a few questions that will help me make up my own mind.
Naming Venet governor of land already granted to him to own - when in that time period a colonial governor was the proverbial "local king" - would one consider that like a feudal heirarchy where a knight owed loyalty to a Duke, a Duke to a King, or would it be considered a full transfer of soveriegnty? Taxation bears on this question - and history says that Argentina stated to Venet that if a colony could be established within 3 years, it would no be taxed by the UP. Now - this arguement goes 2 ways - as it shows the UP claiming the RIGHT to tax the region - but also can be viewed by the UP as saying "if you get it going in three years - we have no claim on you". I honestly don't know enough to know for sure - so perhaps you can shed some light on which one it would be?
Also - Argentina (United Provinces of the River Plate) was formed out of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Viceroyalty as established owed allegience to the monarchy of Spain. Argentina cast off the yoke of feudalism and pursued self-determination. What is the difference between that and the Falklands having the same right to self-determination?
My biggest problem with seeing the Argentinian side is that I don't know what other claims (other than Nootka and the fact they are "closest) Argentina may legitimately have. If there are some - please point me to some places where I can learn about them. Thanks again!