This is true, I'm still trying to work out why if the U.K. has an overseas aid budget, is Scotland, given it's constant we need more money, sends Scottish money overseas to areas such as Malawi, Pakistan, Zambia and Rwanda https://www.gov.scot/publications/contribution-international-development-report-2017-18/pages/4/
its for a good cause, if we were not tied to you lot we wouldnt have to spend so much trying to clear our name.
It would seem the snp does have enough money, I wonder how many times they advertise they send scottish taxpayers money overseas, I know how you feel about people doing that fin...depending on who it is
i have no problem sending cash overseas and helping our industrys in the proccess. thats what foreign aid is. i also have no problem noticing you dont want to talk about capital flight because of brexit.
Perhaps you missed this then? post 28373 I think it's been put off shore to edge their bets fin, as most decent investment and financial companies would. I have no issue with that. You think companies in Scotland wouldn't do the same if Scotland left the U.K. and then gave up independence to join the eu? Of course they would you silly sausage
thats not what they're doing tho isit? they are doing it to protect their assets, not stimulate bussness
I wonder if the Spelman ammendment will pass? That will be a real game changer. "It simply says the Commons would rule out “the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship" But perhaps the Malthouse long transition to No Deal will win the day? Though May has insisted the plan for a transition period without a withdrawal agreement has been rejected by Brussels. That could just be down to her crap negotiation skills or outright lies?
They will have been moved not only to protect until a more settled time gives them the ability to long term review. Where they place it and with multiple options, is normally based on where the best ability to increase revenue for those funds also. As you mentioned JRM, that company in which he has a share in, still retains it's hq in London and has invested overseas since 2007 a very long time before Brexit
you know whats odd?, we had two letter bomb incedents last week. apparently from the IRA. apart from once, when they targeted the queen in orkney 40years ago, the IRA never carried out a campeign here, and half the country coud be seen as being sypathetic in some way (however small) to the replubican cause. odd. v,odd.
Perhaps you could update me, Wasn't this done before (January) as an amendment, and it meant whilst the house says fuck the public, the government was under no legal obligation to carry that out? isn't todays vote the same thing again?
I think there's a correlation: Disbelieve all experts. What do they know? How are they expert and how can they know anything that I don't know? Believe in conspiracy theories, viz the EU is a German plot or a way for European nations to do down and steal from the UK. Climate change is a socialist plot to tax hard working people. Find the narrative that supports your viewpont. It doesn't matter if it's not supported by evidence. Cherry pick the "facts" that support your thesis. View as unreliable and dishonest the opposing viewpoint, no matter how eminent or numerous the voices supporting it. Cling to your position like a limpet to a rock. Refuse to entertain any contrary evidence - it's a plot, remember? Probably dreamt up by the Bilderberg Group. Above all remember: the truth is anything I want it to be.
You could just as easily say I wonder if there is a correlation between those who hate Trump and Brexit, given both were approved using the established democratic process's that that group, were more than happy with on the day they voted?
They think it is pragmatic. It's the UK Parliament that doesn't like it There is a certain irony in Leavers thinking that the people should only get one bite at the cherry to decide in or out of the EU, but that the UK should get multiple bites of the cherry with the EU to get a deal that it likes: EU: OK, we can live with this deal after all this negotiation. UK: Great. We're happy. We'll submit it to Parliament. Some time later... UK: Nope, they don't like it. Can we have another one? EU: Here are a couple of minor tweaks - we are done dealing, you understand? UK: Thanks. We'll submit it to Parliament. Some time later... UK: Nope they still don't like it. When are you going to get serious and give us something they like? Can we have some more time - we were off over Christmas so couldn't get it all ready by the end of March? EU (intransigent and unreasonable as ever...): Maybe. We'll see. How are you going to spend the time? UK: Er... We'll get back to you on that one. We may have a few more ideas we will want you to look at. EU: Sigh.
The house takes the lead from PM I guess. Meaningful Vote NO!. Meaningful Vote OK then. Meaningful vote? Yes but er, not today. Meaningful vote? Yes, but in a month or so. Meaning vote? Greatest defeat (or is it largest?) of government in history. Meaningful Vote (again)? Huge deafeat. Rumour has it that May is thinking of offerring a third Meaningful Vote on her deal! Stupid cow.
