Fin can you explain why the snp in the 2017 general election sought to make rape a very important issue to bash others over the head with, lost a third of their mp's in parliament, and now hardly mention rape at all?
Because women are half the electorate and a significant number of women are sexually abused in their lifetime. I can’t believe you. Just when I thought you couldn’t say anything more ridiculous you pull that one out the hat.
Part of me would have a chuckle at hard Brexit, that’s the “I am all right Jack” part of me. I will be fine. In fact financially I will probably do really well out of it. Have you? If you have you will know it’s not automatic and would not take immediate effect. So then what? Even Liam Fox admits that
Yes but some clearly haven't. You are so Lilly Livered as well as the rest of your cry baby remainers in government - there is no wonder we are in the current position - grow up and grow some will you, your rantings are quite pathetic
What and they all stopped being assualted after the 2017 general election finished? I would agree women are on average half of the population but as you have claimed a significant number of women are sexually abused in their lifetime could you 1 produce the figures for that 2 produce the figures to support the claim how many are sexually abused and on benefits 3 produce figures to show the ACTUAL number of rape babies effected by this benefits change 4 answer why after the 2017 election and using this to bash others with vague and made up assumptions, the snp stopped claiming it? In the word of your leader, tick tock
So you've read up on the WTO and trading under WTO rules and the rules say that any nation trading under those rules can set whatever tariffs they like, it's entirely up to them. So, the rules are there are no rules?
No fin, the rape issue was not brought into this debate by me, look back. You and you new side kick have insisted it was real I asked questions based on what was pushed as real and simply asked for facts rather than nonsense, you are now trying to divert away from the fact the snp are a nasty party and so opportunistic, that they would try and use rape as a general election tool, and when the general election was finished and having lost a third of their mp's in the house, they stopped using rape. I therefore asked some reasonable questions to an argument you yourself also continually use with no facts to support it so again please if you don't mind. I would agree women are on average half of the population but as you have claimed a significant number of women are sexually abused in their lifetime could you 1 produce the figures for that 2 produce the figures to support the claim how many are sexually abused and on benefits 3 produce figures to show the ACTUAL number of rape babies effected by this benefits change 4 answer why after the 2017 election and using this to bash others with vague and made up assumptions, the snp stopped claiming it? Now if you follow your normal form, you won'tt answer any of it, won't have any figures or facts to support it and will try several diverts in the hope the questions will go away. This is now seen by most of the forum what many snp -ite's do. Fulla nonsense and scurrilous claims and very little facts at all. So lets see what diverts you have this week before moving on and blaming everyone else?
“The white paper itself suggests that it may result in an 85% reduction in the number of EEA workers to Scotland – this will be catastrophic for communities and businesses across the whole of Scotland, particularly for key sectors such as tourism, hospitality and the care sector.” Black said the plans did not meet Scotland’s needs or those of the UK: “The Government cannot indulge in selective hearing. It tunes in to business evidence on a disastrous Brexit no deal, but tunes out from the economic damage of draconian blocks on access to vital overseas workers. The facts are clear. Brexit is cutting off the ability to recruit and retain staff for nine out of 10 firms.”
nah, i probably wont answer the same question or counter the same accusations you have posted a thousand times before in a thousand different ways. chances are, i will just dingy most of yer posts. life is to short
Thought so, the rape clause was just a nasty claim by a nasty party with little or no facts to support it and then they dropped it when the election was over, okay cool. now as to black's statement Black said the plans did not meet Scotland’s needs or those of the UK: “The Government cannot indulge in selective hearing. You mean like the snp government going deaf when the scottish people voted to stay in the U.K. and the snp government decided to ignore it and go for indi 2? just checking for a selective hearing friend
It's up to individual countries to set import tariffs - they can set zero tariffs on any goods if they wish. If we import a small item costing over £15 (inclusive of postage) from Australia we get charged import duty, handling charge & vat. If we sell to Aus they can buy several hundred pounds worth with no fees. I watched a program on TV last week where Tim off of Witherspoons explained to a couple of Remoner MP's (who he totally flummoxed) the actual workings - it's not as you believe clearly reciprocating deals are different - like: we sell you a car and stick 10% on it, you sell us a car you stick 10% on it (WTO agreement/rules) I wonder who will be worse off with that particular WTO tariff The amount of project fear shite out there is appalling, but some listen to it without making their own mind up. Yes it would be better to work equally with Europe and benefit due to easy 'trade' :it does in fact benefit the EU more than us, but if they are hell bent on punishing us and scared shitless about their flawed project falling apart, then I for one will not condone us being bullied
But surely it is better for those nice folks in Brussels to determine what tariffs can be charged between the UK and non-EU countries? I mean, what if we were to agree lower tariffs with, say, the USA? Would that not have a detrimental effect on the EU's economy? How could that benefit anyone? Make sense, Elise!
they havent gone for indi two, they just created legislation to make it doable come the day, tho the day is aproching when scotland can make a proper informed desion on where they want to go. this is what i mean by spamming. the 2017GE, WAS NOT run on an indi Manifesto stating independence, that mandate had already been won in 2016 at holyrood. they lost 500,000 votes. but only 40odd K to other partys, by not going on indi. they lost seats to the torys after the labour leader Kezia Dugdale advised labour votors to vote tory, in seats labour could not win.
