RuamRudy

How does one legally seek asylum in the UK?

It's not a rite of passage, it's a nasty, bullying and shameful way for the UK press to behave irrespective of who is on the receiving end. The palace should have stamped it out with Diana, and offered support to Kate and Meghan. They are not powerless here.

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the royal family, but I hate racism and unfairness even more. This article is a bit of an eye-opener, showing just how unfairly Megan has been treated by the UK press.

There is no doubt that, within context, the treatment of Meghan has been unfair and created from racism and our innate British fondness for bootlicking deference and servility. But to use this debate as a means of widening the scope of the discussion does not confer approval to the treatment she has received.

That's a start, but why stop there? Let's get rid of this entire, costly clown show. The days of almost ethereal, untouchable elites has gone. We can now see what a cast of truly dysfunctional and utterly reprehensible people the entire family is. Time to put an end to this farce.

*Deleted posts edited out* Examples? Well, illegal immigration to North America - much from the lawless, impoverished Central American countries. It's not a stretch to say that the US bears a significant responsibility for the state of the countries there from it's decades of exploitation and it's support for paramilitary regimes and right wing dictators. Afghanistan, Syria, North African basket case countries? Again, the US and it's European lackeys have spent most of the past 70 years propping up the worst sort of people to ensure that the countries failed to thrive.Prior to that, Empire and colonialism sowed the seeds of the inequality and strife that blight these regions to this day. So, in my view, the West bears significant responsibility for the state of the developing world, and it can't wash it's hands now simply because it's chickens are coming home to roost.

But will it deter them? Their prospects must be pretty grim to force them to undertake such a journey in the first place. They aren't coming to the UK on a whim.

Meaningless as long as WM refuses to countenance letting go of their cash cow, but a nice headline in yesterday's Times nonetheless. Scots back independence for fourth poll in row

Given the very shaky evidencewhich led to the conviction of al-Megrahi, it will be interesting to see what is offered at this trial.

And you are in the minority.

Ahem... not the entire island, if you please.

56% of Scots in favour of independence according to the latest polls. The labour resurgence is a dead duck, just like Brown's rehash of his UK transformation proposal. https://twitter.com/EmilyIpsosScot/status/1600460869648777216?s=19

Possibly off topic, but Morgan is wrong. He and his ilk didn't allow paparazzi excesses - they demanded it. He wasn't a passive bystander - he was the customer demanding more and more salacious copy, whether by fair or foul means.

Not personally. Do you?

Your approach to racism is not the benchmark to which all others should subscribe. As I am not black, I don't believe it's my place to tell a black person what does or does not constitute racism. I am sure that the lady who felt offended has experienced a lot more of that type of treatment than I ever will.

Has the system worked well? At the last GE we had a government with an 80 seat majority despite the overwhelming majority of voters rejecting them. That's not democracy and it's not a fair system. We have an unelected second house that is stuffed with people whose moral right to be there is highly questionable, It doesn't serve the people. It serves the politicians and cronies who maintain it.

As we have seen, we have no power in Scotland to effectively change the system in the UK - so we want to remove ourselves from it. For some unfathomable reason, people in England seem happy with the status quo but we are not - so we want to leave.

So what you are essentially saying is that in order to participate, you need to vote for one of the prescribed parties? My country en-mass has rejected the two main parties - should we simply give up our political aspirations and accept what is offered to us from your country in order to have our voice listened to? I am nothing like a BNP supporter and to suggest that the 3rd largest party in the HoC is similar to some fringe outfit is as insulting as it is idiotic. What utter bilge - if your imagination is so stunted that this seems a logical step to you, then I cannot help you. In your own words, don't be so ridiculous.

That's my point - we don't want Westminster to make our decisions for us.

Then why the reluctance to let us go? We will clearly never settle for Tory rule in Scotland; Labour are moving closer by the day to being Tory-Lite - we will continue to agitate and object. In fact, I see the anger growing as the UK continues its slide into nasty rightwing politics, and as our institutions continue to crumble or are sold off for a pittance to friends and family. You are tired of us now? We are still ramping up.

England receives more than it pays in; Wales and NI too - that is why the UK has such a horrendous deficit. The point is that all our money goes into Westminster and a government we have rejected at every election since 1955 decides how much to return to us, and how much to charge us for the privilege of having them rule us. We want to make our own spending decisions at every level of government. It is as simple as that.

I want that I don't need my government to go cap in hand to the country next door to ask for some of our money back. We already pay far more than we get back from the UK - as it has been from day 1. There is no need to raise more taxes in Scotland - the requirement is to remove the parasitic government that has been syphoning off our money since 1707. But I agree with your final point - to say that the UK is not a democracy is hardly news, but you are right; why would a parliament which contains 80% English MPs vote to allow their cash cow neighbour to depart?

If I was campaigning for upgraded hospitals, better schools, fair pay and a better social deal for the population, would that also be incessant whinging? It just so happens that I am campaigning for all those but neatly wrapped up in a single concept - Scottish independence. Because let's be honest, none of those things are going to be delivered by a UK government any time soon.

President? While I very much look forward to Scotland becoming an independent republic in the near future, you are jumping ahead of yourself - and the Scottish people.

Who's definition are you using? I suspect that there are many definitions available. Here is the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on racism: Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3] It goes on to say, specifically in regards to ethnicity: . "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior).