RuamRudy

Mad Nads' been had!

It was the Scottish electorate who put her in Bute House, not the SNP.

Fantastic to see that at least some of Johnson's nominations for peerages got through. Especially that for Charlotte Owen, at 29 the youngest ever life peer. But what an amazing contribution to the betterment of our country she has delivered, in her 18 months under Johnson. Well done, Baroness Owen, your country is proud of you. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/charlotte-owen-the-intern-who-became-a-baroness-in-6-years-350671/

A prospective is not a legally binding document. But to be honest, this trope is so tedious and has been played out so many times on this forum that I am going to sit this one out. Fill your boots with your cry of 'once in a lifetime' if it gives you solace. The reality is, however, that as a point of law it's worthless.

Do you know what else it doesn't mention? Any such guff as "once in a generation".

Ok

Simply repeating it doesn't make it any less than nonsense.

And choosing independence would have resulted in the same - a topic for another day

I presume that you have no idea how old I am. I also presume that you have never read the Edinburgh Agreement...

I don't recall the status of the royal family being on the referendum paper in 2014.

Your post makes no sense. We have a democratic process which was followed in 2014. That doesn't mean that we are forever unable to change our minds.

I would expect that it would be decided by the people. Who knows what they would choose...

And why is that so important to you?

Why?

The SNP is not independence and independence is not the SNP. But in terms of government effectiveness, I wouldn't say that they were any more feckless than the nasty party. We are hardly in a golden era of government competence.

*First Minister, not Prime Minister **Socially inclusive party, not nationalist party

And on a cultural level, nothing would change. Taking control of our own affairs and electing to be part of a larger, and demonstrably more powerful economic union would not change the relationships I have with my English friends, just as it won't change my relationships with my European friends.

I think being a failed state within the EU would be preferable to being in this failed union.

Check my previous post.

Can you point to those investigations? The level of potential fraud is many times more than that alleged to have taken place within the SNP - and it's taxpayers' money we are talking about so I would expect the police response and coverage to be greater too. So where is it?

Are you suggesting that they want to keep a financial drain and a constant source of agitation for sentimental reasons? The UK government is more than happy to let ex servicemen live and die on the streets - why would they want to keep Scotland if it wasn't to their benefit?

For that we would need a police investigation to establish the facts, and a court to establish culpability. That has not happened. The most reactive we have seen of the Met in their investigations of allegations of government criminality was then sending a questionnaire to the alleged perpetrators - and that was only after a prolonged press campaign and public outrage. But that's not happened this far for the COVID contract scandal, for example. Matt Hancock's mother, sister and pub landlord can all land juicy contracts to supply products that they have no experience in supplying while experienced suppliers are frozen out, and the police are not interested. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, surely one should investigate whether it really is a duck?

Go on then what? Are you are unaware of the cash for honours scandals or the massive COVID contracts awarded to friends, family and donors of the Tory party? It is all there in the public domain - I would expect that even a little of it may have filtered through to you.

The UK government cannot afford to lose their cash cow.

Again, she has not been charged with anything. As I stated, I support a robust police investigation into the affairs of her party, and if she is guilty of anything then she should face the consequences. But does that make her odious? Maybe our thresholds are different but I would suggest that your justifications are as weak as your case for brexit.