nauseus

There's a laptop story?

Thanks. This is a big reason why there should have been a full J6 investigation.

The OP has one link into the BBC report, which itself contains other links. I had been searching externally to this AN site for any verification and a formal statement from Buckingham Palace. That's it,

And you accused me of trolling!

I just asked for a bit of help that's all - I'm not rereading 31 pages - the only direct quote from the palace I can see in the BBC report is "the palace described the remarks as "unacceptable and deeply regrettable". That agrees with what I could find. Although your unfriendly accusation of trolling has made me less full of seasonal cheer..... ....Merry Christmas.

Great. But I was talking about what Cameron promised in 2013. At least he eventually kept that one.

Link that then please. I can't find it.

Most presidents receive a great deal of airtime. He was quite consistent for the most part but I'd agree more erratic after the Covid outbreak - then again many politicians around the world were like that in 2020. Finally Trump was totally at sea after the 2020 election, when should have just accepted the loss and handed over quietly. Initially, in 2016, he was just as fit for office as many of his predecessors, and even more so than his successor IMOO. How was he a danger to the US? No new conflicts and he pushed NATO countries to contribute as per their own rules, making NATO stronger.

A damning report driven by the bias of an effectively partisan (D) committee, which did not fully investigate all of the relevant events of J6. They were totally consumed in trying to damage Trump himself.

They admitted nothing of the sort.

Cobblers. There was no secret planning. Cameron promised the referendum on the EU publicly in January 2013, if the Conservatives were returned at the next general election (2015).

US Air Force Boeing C-40B

You didn't say that either!

The Belfast Agreement concerns NI, not Scotland. It is a political agreement and nothing to do with what I feel is appropriate. What I do feel is that your use of the word discrimination here is inflammatory.

shhhhh

Your assumptions and accusations are both false and tasteless.

If there were to be no agreement between the two parliaments if another referendum was sought, then that would be the legislative reason why it could not happen.

You said: "none of that changes the fact that there is no legislative reason a referendum could not happen because there was one prior to brexit". That is both specific and wrong. Bye.

Ask the expert.

2014 was a one-off.

The problem with your faux victory roll is that, while Scotland has this hybrid system within its own jurisdiction, that system does not simply override the UK Parliament where referendums are concerned. An agreement between the Scottish and UK Parliaments is needed to legally allow another national referendum for Scotland, as was the case in 2014.

Simple? Scotland has its own independent and in parts clearly different judicial system with own jurisdiction. The law of Scotland is not a pure Common Law system, but a mixed system.

Since the first word was Belfast!

The Belfast Agreement concerns NI. Not Scotland.

Already done.