Voting Liberal Democrat?Except - in support of Bubbles' point - 'recent' in SC terms can mean 'nearly ten years ago' which (by any sane interpretation) is next to useless if not downright misleading.
Having recently been through this process, I was struck how utterly feeble the whole construct is.
I re-entered a metric fücktonne of information that they already had access to. I answered a lot of questions about inlaws, outlaws and sundry other people in my life, like where they were born, when they got married etc ad nauseam. I answered a few questions about finances. But I answered precisely no questions about my aptitude for handling sensitive information (which, ironically, is possibly one of the only relevant human factors in this zone that can both be assessed empirically and has any kind of objective consistency).
And the assessment of those pieces of information, which can change in a matter of days, is supposed to lead to a judgement that basically says 'this SP can be trusted with material marked up to Top Secret for the next decade'.
As Bubbles says, its a total waste of money, and I challenge anyone to show how the current SC process produces the 'assurance' that the letters 'SC' imply and on which the 'system' relies with such blind confidence.
Out of interest, does anyone know what it takes to fail an SC vetting? Genuine question - I've never come across one before.
My Bold. I'm not sure to be honest. I'm assuming that obviuos and public indicators that you are untrustworthy, deceptive and pose a risk of being an Inside Threat should you be appointed. As, for example, the DV process examines a candidates susceptibility to blackmail among other things.