The Goat Pen

That graph showing the big increase in food stamp recipients: is the implied message:

a.) That the economy is so bad that unemployed people are forced to apply for food stamps so that their families can eat? I can agree with that. Or is the message,

B.) Look at all those lazy bums who choose to mooch off the productive people by using food stamps instead of getting jobs? I would heartily disagree with that.

AA, if you're out there somewhere, what is your insider's take on the vote for Scottish independence?

It doesn't seem to be driven by any giant issue or principle. It's not like the South's seccession from the Union, where the issue was the states' right to practice slavery, or Ireland's independence because England had treated them like crap for hundreds of years.

My guess is its popularity is fueled by traditional Scottish grumpiness while the real underlying issue is the Scottish elites want to keep all that North Sea oil revenue.

What's your take?

That the economy is so bad that unemployed people are forced to apply for food stamps so that their families can eat?



OR....it could be the result of a plan executed to perfection.

The Scots, traditionally, have been treated at least as bad as the Irish were.

That, the oil you mention, and being patted on the head and told 'no' on initiatives, plans, and schemes of Scottish design and planning fueled this.


I posted in The Goat Pen that I was against separation, but I think the vote will pass; unless, of course, MI5 is able to keep that from happening.

Also, I wish a super majority had been required for the separation to pass. 51% of those voting will ultimately decide.

x

but I think the vote will pass; unless, of course, MI5 is able to keep that from happening.

Heh. What an intriguing theory. MI5 could ACORN the referendum and ferry in thousands of Unionists from Ulster to vote "No." Or Cameron could channel Putin and send in the British Army to "protect" the 49% of "No" voters in Scotland if the measure passes.

No need for those kinda machinations. Most Scottish voting boxes don't have the security of the ones here in the US. "Stuffing the box" is easy, cheap, quick, and effective. Take a look at the link for what most of the voting boxes in Scotland look like:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-sco ... s-29235191

Decent voting boxes must cost a lot by Scottish standards.

MI5 could channel Chicago/Illinois and turn out the dead vote for "No." Robbie Burns himself could participate in the "No" wave of votes from the cemetery precincts.

That, the oil you mention, and being patted on the head and told 'no' on initiatives, plans, and schemes of Scottish design and planning fueled this.

I just saw an example what were talking about. A couple of "Yes" leaders said in an interview that their original proposal was to remain in the UK but with "Devo Max" - i.e. have maximum autonomy. They said that the Scots would have accepted that in lieu of independence. They said that London's counter offer was a choice between the status quo and independence. Nothing in between. I guess that England never thought the Scots would go this far. The English are probably wishing they could have that one back.

The vote will be "no".

Scots do not have the initiative to go out on their own.

Professor Tiger wrote:x

Possibly Profs best post ever.

"OR....it could be the result of a plan executed to perfection."

I'd like to see you executed to perfection...

I'd like to see you stop posting like a moron.

A little less extreme than my wishes for Toe, but I get your message...

sardis wrote:The vote will be "no".

Scots do not have the initiative to go out on their own.

AA will go postal on you momentarily.

"S,YAAM" is born.

Stocks are booming, with the S & P and the Dow at record highs.

In general, I believe that efforts to pin stock market success (or failure) on poliitcal figures aren't useful. That's in part because much of the discussion, which is generally driven by those on the right side of the ideological spectrum, overlooks the historical record. Many market pundits hold as foundational truth that bad things happen to markets and investors when Democrats control the White House and good things happen when Republicans run the show. They are, of course, wrong. Over the past century, markets have generally done better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. The worst crashes (1929, 1987, 2008) happened when Republicans held the office. Any many of the greatest bull runs - the Nifty Fifty market of the 1960s, the boom of the 90s, the current bull run - took place under Democrats. The dopes who dumped stocks in early 2009 fearful that President Obama would be bad for the stock market have missed one of history's great rallies.

heh guess who..

Put the voting boxes in the Scottish Pubs...you will have a 150% voter turnout.

sardis wrote:The vote will be "no".

Scots do not have the initiative to go out on their own.

I don't know that initiative is an issue. Scotland has ruled itself before. That said, I think the UK should be preserved.

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Put the voting boxes in the Scottish Pubs...you will have a 150% voter turnout.

Concur.