The Icelanders referendum came out strongly against paying the debt of their banks for the rest of their lives. Maybe it’s not supporting your own side but I agree with them to a degree.
In most businesses a check is done on how financially stable a business partner is. It would seem obvious that a country of 300,000 cannot sustain a multi-billion pound business so how was it allowed. Why did government institutions invest heavily. You might think we employ highly qualified civil servants and financial experts who would have warned us about businesses who are way out on a limb, but we were all caught sleeping on the job in the euphoric boom of 2007.
On the basis that they were allowed to trade it seems there appears to be a shared liability. Perhaps it isn’t logical because if it was a larger country we’d expect them to pay. On the other hand if it was a very large country we might be in the opposite situation of being forced to accept what they offer. Perhaps we should think like that but, in this case I’d support offering generous terms with perhaps a non-financial price related to politics or future business, like guaranteed fish supplies.