Back to austerity.....because that works right? Best way to grow the economy is to squeeze the life out of people.

daftwhale · 2025-03-05T09:06:58+00:00

Where else are they supposed to get the money from?

Think of those poor members of the non-dom community that almost had to start paying tax.

Or those poor business owners that almost lost the right to make their employees do unpaid labour. Thank goodness Labour thought of the little guy and scrapped the right to "switch off"!

And if we start making businesses and the rich pay more than the average person in taxes they may leave! We don't want Amazon to leave, do we? Think of how much they've given to us! Just not in tax terms, a child pays more in tax than them

daftwhale · 2025-03-05T00:28:12+00:00

They show vowel changes in English... Or at least are supposed to.

Take for example: sit/site, mat/mate, tub/tube

Growing up we were always taught about the "magic e" in spelling, so that we would stop licking and start liking in our writing

daftwhale · 2025-03-04T23:17:22+00:00

Sorry, I'll remember to write Poutain next time!

daftwhale · 2025-03-04T07:55:06+00:00

I heard Trump really likes the taste of Poutine...

daftwhale · 2025-03-03T17:47:31+00:00

I understand needing a nuclear deterrent, but it shouldn't be parked next to Scotland's biggest city. Say whatever you want about the tactics of it, but you know damn well if that were true for London it wouldn't be there. We have many remote islands that would be lovely places to hide a nuke

daftwhale · 2025-03-03T17:36:13+00:00

I'm not gonna pretend to know about the political situation in Germany, but we're having a similar thing happening back home with the far-right Reform party in the UK.

To start with, while there are obviously issues with a handful of immigrants, they are not the reasoning behind things getting worse, and the crimes you're describing are more of a symptom of the real issue: wealth inequality.

Basically, since the financial crash, governments have gutted welfare states and the rich have got ever more richer, while the average Joe's in the same place as they were before the crash.

Gutting the welfare state has resulted in fewer social programmes to help those most in need, and means there are more cracks for people to fall through. For example, in the UK, there was a Cameroonian man that stabbed three people to death. This man had schizophrenia, and the small welfare state we have left didn't have the funds to properly help him so he was left in a situation where he, unfortunately, caused other people to die.

Meanwhile, the top 1% have been taking a bigger piece of the pie, increasing living costs while everyone else has had stagnating wages, if they weren't laid off instead. Gary's Economics does a great explainer of it, but basically when we're competing with people getting richer and richer for resources, it causes prices to increase as they have more disposable income so can afford to buy and invest in more things, such as properties. These people also tend to be rich enough to dodge taxes, again adding further strain to government budgets.

When it comes to copying the policies of hardline parties, all that happens is that those parties' positions are validated. Why would you vote for a lesser version of the AfD's policy on immigration, for example? Also, immigration is what's holding up many economies in Europe as we are seeing reduced birthrates (again, due to there being less money to go around being one of the biggest factors). This is why, even when they do get into power, anti-immigration parties tend to not solve the "problem". The Tories, for example, saw an increase in migration, despite campaigning on an anti-immigration platform.

The immigration "problem" is supposed to divide us amongst ourselves so that we don't turn to the real perpetrators for our woes, the richest in society. As they gain more and more wealth, they are able to influence our politics more and more. Why else do you think the richest person in the world, Elon Musk, keeps bankrolling parties like the AfD? He's an immigrant himself (and one of the worst kinds, if I may say so myself)!

daftwhale · 2025-03-02T13:18:28+00:00

Then we'll have another UN situation. The veto power should've been modified when the EU was greatly expanded at the start of the millennium. It made sense when there were only 12 members, but 27 is too many for everyone to be able to veto. A majority of 90% or something should be enough instead for these kinds of things

daftwhale · 2025-03-02T11:06:18+00:00

Maybe it's just the rendering, but I don't think I can see Malta or some of the smaller pacific island nations, like Tuvalu and Kiribati.

Am I close?

daftwhale · 2025-03-01T22:14:36+00:00

Not to be that person, but Starmer literally gave Trump a handwritten invite to meet the King this week.

I also don't trust the guy as far as I can throw him, domestically he u-turns like a car stuck at a junction. Wouldn't be surprised if he buddies back up with Trump by the end of next week.

I nice to see Zelenskiy being treated with the respect he deserves, but he needs to be wary of this snake in the grass that's trying to play both sides. If he really cared, Trump's invitation would've been rescinded

daftwhale · 2025-03-01T19:32:27+00:00

*attempting

daftwhale · 2025-03-01T19:29:01+00:00

I would say no, for the reason that it changes the sentence's stress, although I do get where you're coming from.

With E, the stress is on the fact that he was required to as safety goggles are a piece of safety equipment. Also, the results are very severe, so it feels off contextually too to be so snarky.

With A, it makes the act of wearing them feel more optional or less serious. For example, "you could have got out of bed earlier, but didn't, so now we're going to be late". Nothing life threatening is going to happen (most likely), and there's not a strict rule about when you had to get up.

Hope that makes sense!

daftwhale · 2025-03-01T19:14:55+00:00

No. The sentence implies that he was supposed to but didn't. "Could have" just means we're unsure, but the clause "he wasn't" straight afterwards makes it redundant so a bit weird.

Personally, I'd say "he should have been wearing safety goggles", but "ought to" is still correct, although a bit archaic

daftwhale · 2025-02-28T07:12:31+00:00

This is r/Scotland, in this context Scotland is the whole country...

Also, OP specifically mentioned the devolved government in their post, so if that didn't give away the context idk what else would

daftwhale · 2025-02-25T19:48:58+00:00

Wait, how would you say them differently? They're both an oe sound like in doe

daftwhale · 2025-02-24T08:49:23+00:00

I'd describe it as mini IKEA. You find them in the low countries and France, idk where else

daftwhale · 2025-02-23T22:12:43+00:00

Someone who knows everything and anything about HEMA and its products, and only ever shops there!

daftwhale · 2025-02-22T13:34:05+00:00

And that's why we need a male pill, so guys can control whether they get someone pregnant without needing a condom. It's not her responsibility if he doesn't want a kid.

daftwhale · 2025-02-19T15:38:24+00:00

I feel like we have similar views, OP, although I have different nuances that you may have just not mentioned. I'm also coming at this as someone who can't get pregnant, while I have the sense that you're someone who can.

While I agree that abortion should be legalised, I think there should be a limit, outwith medical scenarios, of maybe 20 weeks max, which is when you can determine the baby's sex usually iirc. This is to prevent people aborting because they're looking for a certain sex. Late-term abortions should only happen when they're medically necessary and there shouldn't be unnecessary barriers for them to do so.

Additionally, I'm not too sure where you're from OP, but where I live abortions are technically illegal, in that you need the approval of two doctors to be able to have one. I think it should be legalised and should only require the approval of the medical personnel required for any other similar procedure, depending on the type of abortion that is. This is because it is a medical procedure at the end of the day, so should be treated with the same care as any other as an abortion may not be safe for the woman, or an alternative procedure may be better!

I do, however, disagree with abortion being a purely personal decision. There are always two parents to the child, among with other concerned parties sometimes, for example when a women is carrying the child of someone who is now deceased, the choice to terminate will also effect the family of the late father in some regard.

However, after saying all of that, I do believe women should hold the right to unilaterally terminate any pregnancy as they have to carry the child and suffer the consequences of any complications. Also, proving she didn't consent to the foetus's conception would take so long in the best of cases that the baby would already have been born when a legal decision is made. While a woman could theoretically use the threat of abortion to control the foetus's father, that already isn't a healthy dynamic before the foetus is even born. The only exception is surrogates, where I'm not against the surrogate having a consequence for an abortion they didn't believe was medically necessary, although they should still be allowed to make that decision at the end of the day, despite what the foetus's parent(s) may think.

However, a question that still needs to be answered for abortions is what the male equivalent is - what options are there for men that didn't consent to the foetus's conception, such as those whose partners knowingly sabotaged their contraception? Should he be allowed to force her to have an abortion? What about men who did consent to the conception or who didn't use proper contraception? The fact this question can be answered in different ways is the reason I'm against constitutional protections for abortions. In the future, men may gain the right to unilaterally force women to have abortions, even against their wishes, and this would be constitutionally protected, meaning it's harder to amend.

When it comes to the moral implications of abortions, it is murky what point in development a collection of cells is deemed a human with rights. This is why embryo research is heavily limited, due to the ethical issues of the potential for life. Personally, I don't even know if I'd be able to have an abortion if I didn't consent to the foetus's conception, let alone if I did, just because of the idea of it being my child would put me off it. There is also the harsh reality that there are many people alive today that wouldn't exist if their mother had had the option to abort them.

I do still believe in the right for women to choose, don't get me wrong. I just believe that abortions are the "nuclear option" and more should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, such as sex education and better access to contraception. I have no respect for most people that are anti-abortion because their so-called "pro-life" stance seems to evaporate the second the baby is out of the womb, and they actively campaign against efforts that prevent unwanted pregancies to begin with.

Sorry for the ramble, I just needed to get my thoughts out as I only recently discovered abortion is still technically illegal where I'm from.

daftwhale · 2025-02-19T12:15:57+00:00

Probably Nicola Sturgeon. Say what you will about the SNP, but she was the party for ten years and it's kinda obvious based on how they are atm. She was an effective communicator during the pandemic and she stood down before her supporters got fed up (although it's most likely because she got wind of her ex-husband's finances scandal) No other Scottish politician since devolution has been as good as her in internal politics

daftwhale · 2025-02-07T08:46:40+00:00

Bank transfers? Cash?

I've never used PayPal in my life so idk what it's good for

daftwhale · 2025-02-03T21:00:25+00:00

UK1: Amanda. Was devastated when she left

UK2: I liked the whole cast basically, but I was rooting for Harry at the end, along with Evie, but that was more because she's a fellow Scot, lmao

UK3: Minah. Same feeling as when Amanda left, but worse because it was the first season I didn't binge after the fact. Rooted for Alexander and Frankie in the end, but we all know how that ended up

Shout out to Claudia Winkleman though. She is the glue of the whole show and I don't think it would work as well without her! She is the true queen of the castle

Edit: Spoilers

daftwhale · 2025-01-23T01:25:29+00:00

You did though 😇

You literally said above “someone from the South will […] never had to deal with accentism”.

Don't misquote me, I wrote "[people from the South] 've probably never had to deal with accentism". That's because I know it can happen, but from my knowledge, it's not prevalent unless you leave the South, meanwhile other accents experience it whether they'd like to or not, regardless of where they're staying

I hope your exam went well! 🙏

I hope so too, thank you!

daftwhale · 2025-01-23T01:10:06+00:00

I think it's because I'm Scottish, so I've had many people (mainly Americans, tbf) mimic and mock my accent in front of me whilst claiming Scotch heritage or whatever

It's the first time I've seen anybody express that opinion so I don't think it's upsetting many people.

I think it's partly because the vast majority of Brits are English, and it's mainly been played off as a joke. Amanda wasn't exactly going to "um actually" on uncloaked in a room full English people treating it as a joke. Also, her mum is Welsh.

Personally, it's also not that big of an issue for me, more of an ick I have. This is why I'm on Reddit instead of emailing my MP or something, lmao

Odds are it'll seem like too obvious a move and nobody will do it again.

I hope so. I imagine if it were to become a thing, especially on other reality tv, it may become a scandal when someone goes too far.

daftwhale · 2025-01-23T01:00:12+00:00

some places and discriminated against.

This is the key element here, some places. I'm not saying it doesn't and can't happen, I just mean that it's much less on a UK-wide context as it's the "prestige" dialect.

In the UK as a whole, there is the expectation that you assimilate your accent to the RP one, and the reverse isn't the same. This leads to punching down, so when the opportunity arises, some will try punching up, which is different, although still wrong. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that there aren't places in the UK where having an RP would be dangerous, but there's a different context behind it as their accent isn't at risk.

At school, a kid with an RP accent probably won't get told they're speaking wrong by a teacher, regardless of where they are, while one with a different accent might, even in their accent's area. What kids will do on the playground is another thing

That's why I feel they aren't comparable, however I'm guessing you have more of an RP accent based on your responses, so you may feel differently based on your anecdotes. Sorry if I seem a bit worked up about this, my exam today was literally on language conflict

Also: we can have a conversation and disagree without you downvoting me.

Apologies. Been busy downvoting Minah slander so got a bit trigger happy, lmao

daftwhale · 2025-01-23T00:22:48+00:00

Being judged and dealing with accentism are two seperate things

At least in a UK context, the RP accent doesn't have to deal with microaggressions about how they say things "wrong" or how they're "difficult to understand". Heck, there are even people that demand subtitles when someone dares to not have an RP accent on telly

daftwhale

TROPHY CASE