Giving some people a discount is not the same thing as penalizing everyone else.
How is this different?
The FAQ is an acquired taste. I think the idea is that if you don't like that you probably won't enjoy the restaurant. Businesses don't really like unsatisfied customers. They're more expensive to deal with and they dn't get repeat business.
Would this also bar restaurants from effectively penalising customers who want to post postive revews? Could part of this restauran't business model be made illegal?
They'll have to destroy them ship to ship.
I don't think it was just about slavery though. While I'm sure a lot of people in the north were sympathetic, the idea that so many were sympathetic enough to actually risk death seems a little too heroic for a typical person. The southerners would have been fighting not for *their* right to own slaves, but for some rich landowner. The actual reasons must have been more complex.
Joining the ERM wasn't in the UK's interest. It probably isn't in Scotland's interest. Sweden certainly seems to be happy to hold off.
No, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new entrants. Countries that were previously part of the EU and did not adopt were grandfathered in and don't have to change, but for new entrants it's not optional.
But the requirement is not to do so immediately. A country can effectively hold off forever.
If the independence talks do stall, presumably it will be negotiated with a third part mediator. Perhaps I'm biased, but I don't see a third party accepting Scotland's demands here as reasonable.
For example, if I'm interested in making lots of money I'll go into financial software. A lot banks still use COBOL, so doing a course on that increases my options in this area. Even if I don't use it ever again, and don;t even go into banking, I'm still a lot more likely to work for a company that pays a lot because money motivates me.