MrSpikey

So, being gay is not a choice. So, being gay is a choice. Typical liberals, eh? Requiring anyone who questions the agenda to have some sort of coherent argument on the subject, "outing" people as homophobes when only some of their contradictory comments were homophobic! Quite pathetic, really.

Only one of the top three Celtic shareholders owns INM shares, Desmond, and while he is the largest Celtic shareholder, he isn't the largest INM shareholder, holding only 15%. So, presumably you meant to say, "the largest shareholders in a member-club of the SPFL are not the largest shareholders of said media company".

...that wasn't Britain. British foreign policy has never been about some altruistic view of fairness.

The recent accounts also stated that "Further funding amounting to £3.2m is forecast to be required during the 2018/19 season" to offset the operating loss and balance the books, even with the prospect of a new retail deal.

Most other places require the permission of the person you are aiming to f**k, regardless what their parents think about it.

Oh no! Presumably they sought asylum in other countries that didn't force them to have to interact with foreigners? Won't someone think of the children!

A priceless moment from the Trump campaign? Not quite as priceless as when they subsequently initiated court proceedings against Trump for not paying their agreed appearance fees,

It might help clarify your perspective if you could define what you view as "the majority group" and the essential characteristics of the singular culture you believe they share that society and government should operate around. It's obviously something you're "not ashamed" about, after all, so please spell it out for us.

Certainly probably! Always a good combination. And well supported with evidence, as ever...

No, it's not. Here's what you said (bolding mine): "Companies have been moving jobs to Europe for decades, especially factory production jobs ,.......where the f**k were you then when factory production workers were losing their jobs you arse?" So those jobs were both moved and lost, according to you. While also claiming jobs moved are different from jobs lost. Please try not to be deliberately ignorant!

Consistency FTW!

The guy sitting second from the left appears not to have heard that Mark Warburton resigned.

Also, "imperfectly registered". Apparently, SFA stands for Strategically Fielded Adverbs.

One step at a time - maybe focus on getting Rhode first, however long that apparently may take?

Piece

I did point out in my original post that the proposal was at a very early stage, and may not come to pass. Details such as cost are slim at this stage. What legal mechanism do you think could compel the British government to pay such fees? Individual countries granting leave to remain wouldn't grant the EU-wide leave to remain posited in the proposal. Similarly, getting citizenship of a member state would grant more rights than the proposal lists. I might not wish to pay for special treatment, but if other individuals do, why shouldn't they have that option? The post-Article 50 discussions will be about a member state leaving. The proposal relates to individuals, not member states, so it's not really the same thing. The proposer may have an agenda - I find most politicians do. What do you think is the agenda he has at work here?

The proposal for associate EU Membership is to be offered to individuals - I'm struggling to see how that would contribute to "Project Fear". Given the narrow focus of the referendum question was on membership of the EU, and not membership of related institutions, or on what restrictions should be applied by the gov't on particular policies, I don't think anyone can claim a legitimate mandate on the form of our relation with Europe after we leave until after the next General Election or referendum, which ever comes first.

Quite possibly - however, should things such as this actually be introduced, then that argument pretty much goes out the window.