It is just so bad of us. The Guardian clearly believes that we should all (across the whole of the UK) vote for Labour, whether through policies and proposals disgust and repel us or not. Vote for bad or worse….
The muppets on the #Guardian might consider that voting for parties that care about Scotland (welfare, housing, the SNHS, the two child limit) might also swing voters. They might (Labour) consider NOT parachuting in candidates from England with no knowledge of their constituencies.
#Labour and the #Conservatives do not care about Scotland. Just bums on seats, and resources.
Particularly egregious misuse of stats from the Guardian: "Although more than a third of the women in the study had been sexually inactive during the past month, fewer than half expressed dissatisfaction with their sex lives."
Sooo... 1/3 inactive, >1/3 dissatisfied. And yet the article is trying to suggest it's at the other end of the scale by framing it as "fewer than half" and behaving as if it's surprising?
Comment is neither free or easy on the Gruaniad. I notice that Jenkins (a Brexit supporting unionist) failed to mention that Scots were included in Sunaks list of threats.
So much for free comment, and another reason I dropped my contribution to this SE England rag.
The Guardian gotta Guardian - ‘absolute’ facts maybe but they shy away from any serious analysis of how in many areas Scotland is doing better than the other three countries - whoops, in their words, two countries and a principality) in many areas.
Unionism with a faux-socialist coat and stinking just as badly as without the coat.
While this report by @guardian could be improved by refraining from describing deputized, state-sanctioned violence as "anarchy" and playing into the statist "anarchy = violent chaos" trope, this is otherwise good reporting which you won't find anywhere in the NYT these days.
Yet again the #Guardian shows it's unionist anti-Scotland #bias by failing to mention that it is #Scotland that leads the #UK in access to #EV#charging points.
If anyone has ever taken the trouble to read the comments (when allowed) below any article on Scotland will have realised, many, if not all, readers (they definitely seem to have done so) take a rather different view.
One more for their collection of ‘balanced articles' I suppose, along with Crace, Rowson and many more.
I find this utterly baffling. You're a non-dom and you're complaining that removing that status will mean you have to pay so much tax that you'll leave. Right, well...
From what I've seen, the evidence that the super-rich actually do leave when taxes go up isn't there. So you might leave, but most of your fellows will pay more.
If you aren't paying your tax at the moment, then your argument that you have value to the country is essentially trickle-down economics. You have money, therefore you will spend it or give it to others. Trickle down has been shown to be bullshit.
So. You will leave and take your very small contribution with you. Fine. Most of your friends won't, they will compensate for the loss of your (to you) pittance. If you don't want to pay your share like everyone else, then you are not a loss to this country when you leave. Piss off and don't let the door hit you on the way out.