How easy it is for Westminster to take "devolved" powers back

[Nex]

Fury after unelected peers strip power from Scotland

The Unionists of the House of Lords slipped a last minute change into a vote they were having and removed a devolved power related to renewable energy.

Very interesting seeing as how pro-renewable the SNP are compared to the Nuclear loving Tories and Labour and also how different Scotland is from England when it comes to what types of renewables are best.

In the grand scheme of things perhaps it is only a small piece of a small area of the devolved powers but it shows a worrying precedent and how little respect there is for devolution.

 

[Jack]

Westminster could shut down Holyrood tomorrow.











If it wasn't a Friday.













Friday is back to the constituency day so in reality Tuesday.

 

[7 Hills]

Yes, this is very sinister. I've been arguing with friends over the past few weeks that Westminster could easily denude the Scottish Parliament's powers if the outcome of the independence referendum is "no". My views have generally been derided, as these folk think that we can go looking for further devolved powers in the event of a "no" vote. I saw the article from the OP last night and copied it around a few folk. I think that a lot of them are coming round to my way of thinking now...

 

[Jack]

Yes, this is very sinister. I've been arguing with friends over the past few weeks that Westminster could easily denude the Scottish Parliament's powers if the outcome of the independence referendum is "no". My views have generally been derided, as these folk think that we can go looking for further devolved powers in the event of a "no" vote. I saw the article from the OP last night and copied it around a few folk. I think that a lot of them are coming round to my way of thinking now...

Westminster will devolve more powers to Holyrood of that I have no doubt.

They will be powers Holyrood doesn't really want, probably money sapping powers and the money won't follow.

I had a bit of a snigger time today with the extra 300m given to the Scottish Government budget.

A cynical bribe ahead of the vote next year.

In my opinion, if there was no vote next year it would have been a minimum 300m cut, so we're 600m better off.

Westminster will want that back if we say NO and the interest would make wonga blush.

Westminster won't kill off Holyrood in an obvious way but will kill it off financially.

 

[Nex]

Power Devolved is Power Retained.

 

[Smurf]

Since 1999 more powers have been devolved and more will continue to be. Too many are not aware of what powers we actually have. The big policy announcement last week of how an independent Scotland would have this kind of nursery education etc etc. Power that is already devolved and the reason why we currently don't have the nursery vision that was outlined is because the SNP haven't used their powers to give it!

 

[aggie]

Since 1999 more powers have been devolved and more will continue to be. Too many are not aware of what powers we actually have. The big policy announcement last week of how an independent Scotland would have this kind of nursery education etc etc. Power that is already devolved and the reason why we currently don't have the nursery vision that was outlined is because the SNP haven't used their powers to give it!

I'm completely aware which powers are devolved to us.

The simple fact is that to really start making a difference, we need control of ALL our revenue, so we can start prioritising areas we deem important, and privileging them over other areas. Simply having the power to do things is plainly not enough if you can't structure the finances to pay for it. It really is pretty simple.

What this story demonstrates starkly is the fantasy you and other No voters seem to share; that is that a No vote is synonymous with "the status quo". It's patently not. As soon as independence is off the table, this particular instance will look like small beans.

You'd have us sleepwalk into this future because Westminster tells us "we love you, though", and you believe them. I don't normally take an antagonistic position with No voters, but your trust in the Westminster government is astonishing.

 

[Jack]

Since 1999 more powers have been devolved and more will continue to be. Too many are not aware of what powers we actually have. The big policy announcement last week of how an independent Scotland would have this kind of nursery education etc etc. Power that is already devolved and the reason why we currently don't have the nursery vision that was outlined is because the SNP haven't used their powers to give it!

They've not done nursery education because it's not financially viable unless the extra taxes paid by the 'new' working mums is retained in Scotland. Under the current system the taxes would go to the UK exchequer and Scotland would not get the extra revenue raised.

I'm surprised the NO vote politicians were able to say what they did the other week with a straight face. Any respect I had for Darling darling disappeared in a poof of grey smoke! He didn't even couch the words in a way that was economical with the truth. An arrogant bastard. A bare faced liar.

 

[southfieldhibby]

I'm surprised the NO vote politicians were able to say what they did the other week with a straight face. Any respect I had for Darling darling disappeared in a poof of grey smoke! He didn't even couch the words in a way that was economical with the truth. An arrogant bastard. A bare faced liar.

I think the knives are being sharpened for Darling, especially from the tory boys.He really muddled through last week, much like Carmichael.Annabel Goldie put them both to shame.

The chat about not funding the nursery places coming from BT is weak, its affordable in an indy Scotland because we'll have full control over finances.Only a simpleton can't see it.

 

[Smurf]

I think the knives are being sharpened for Darling, especially from the tory boys.He really muddled through last week, much like Carmichael.Annabel Goldie put them both to shame.

The chat about not funding the nursery places coming from BT is weak, its affordable in an indy Scotland because we'll have full control over finances.Only a simpleton can't see it.

The devolved government has a budget and it is up to them how they choose to spend it. They've chosen to spend how much on a referendum? That money could have been spent on nursery provision. Simples!

- - - Updated - - -

They've not done nursery education because it's not financially viable unless the extra taxes paid by the 'new' working mums is retained in Scotland. Under the current system the taxes would go to the UK exchequer and Scotland would not get the extra revenue raised.

I'm surprised the NO vote politicians were able to say what they did the other week with a straight face. Any respect I had for Darling darling disappeared in a poof of grey smoke! He didn't even couch the words in a way that was economical with the truth. An arrogant $#@!. A bare faced liar.

Scotland is still part of the UK exchequer.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm completely aware which powers are devolved to us.

The simple fact is that to really start making a difference, we need control of ALL our revenue, so we can start prioritising areas we deem important, and privileging them over other areas. Simply having the power to do things is plainly not enough if you can't structure the finances to pay for it. It really is pretty simple.

What this story demonstrates starkly is the fantasy you and other No voters seem to share; that is that a No vote is synonymous with "the status quo". It's patently not. As soon as independence is off the table, this particular instance will look like small beans.

You'd have us sleepwalk into this future because Westminster tells us "we love you, though", and you believe them. I don't normally take an antagonistic position with No voters, but your trust in the Westminster government is astonishing.

Then why hasn't the SNP used tax raising powers that they have?

 

[southfieldhibby]

The devolved government has a budget and it is up to them how they choose to spend it. They've chosen to spend how much on a referendum? That money could have been spent on nursery provision. Simples!

Typically flippant reply Kenny, but for your own benefit-

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smurf]

Typically flippant reply Kenny, but for your own benefit-

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it flippant? They have clearly chosen other priorities in terms of how they spend their budget. You maybe believe that us divorced from UK plc would see Scotland plc have a greater budget with more cash to spend but I agree with the experts that that will not be the case. And even if it was the case I see no case to end three hundred years of a successful marriage.

And I am not talking of the respective campaign costs. I am talking of the costs of promoting the white paper through print and outdoor media etc.

 

[southfieldhibby]

Why is it flippant? They have clearly chosen other priorities in terms of how they spend their budget. You maybe believe that us divorced from UK plc would see Scotland plc have a greater budget with more cash to spend but I agree with the experts that that will not be the case. And even if it was the case I see no case to end three hundred years of a successful marriage.

Because you suggested the cost of running a democratic referendum should instead be used for additional child care.

And I've never said once that Scotland would have more or less of a budget post independence, I have suggested that post independence Scotland would be in charge of all its 'economic levers' and be able to make a more comprehensive assessment of our needs.And for every expert Darling or Carmichael you can copy, I could probably cite one from Sturgeon or Canavan.I'm all about the right to self determination.

300 years of successful marriage.lolz.

And btw, Finland today celebrates its 96 birthday post independence from it larger neighbour Russia, an example to what Scotland could be.

 

[Hattie]

Why is it flippant? They have clearly chosen other priorities in terms of how they spend their budget. You maybe believe that us divorced from UK plc would see Scotland plc have a greater budget with more cash to spend but I agree with the experts that that will not be the case. And even if it was the case I see no case to end three hundred years of a successful marriage.

And I am not talking of the respective campaign costs. I am talking of the costs of promoting the white paper through print and outdoor media etc.

The experts eh...
Will that be the experts that state that Scotland pays more tax than the uk per head..
Or the ones who state Scotland can be a success....
Etc etc...
Or is it just the experts who fit the agenda by westminster:coffee:

 

[Smurf]

Because you suggested the cost of running a democratic referendum should instead be used for additional child care.

And I've never said once that Scotland would have more or less of a budget post independence, I have suggested that post independence Scotland would be in charge of all its 'economic levers' and be able to make a more comprehensive assessment of our needs.And for every expert Darling or Carmichael you can copy, I could probably cite one from Sturgeon or Canavan.I'm all about the right to self determination.

300 years of successful marriage.lolz.

And btw, Finland today celebrates its 96 birthday post independence from it larger neighbour Russia, an example to what Scotland could be.

No interest on what any deluded politician says. What the Institute for Fiscal Studies says interests me though.

My point was that this administration has chosen their priorities in terms of spending. Nursery isn't a priority. The ex Green Party leader called it spot on.

 

[Dub]

Why is it flippant? They have clearly chosen other priorities in terms of how they spend their budget. You maybe believe that us divorced from UK plc would see Scotland plc have a greater budget with more cash to spend but I agree with the experts that that will not be the case. And even if it was the case I see no case to end three hundred years of a successful marriage.

And I am not talking of the respective campaign costs. I am talking of the costs of promoting the white paper through print and outdoor media etc.

A successful marriage. Is that the way you see it Kenny. I see it as a marriage alright but with one of the partners being continually brow beaten, bullied and henpecked by the other. I see one of the partners keeping the pay packet when it comes in and doling out pocket money like my mum used to do with my dad and his wages many years ago.

 

[southfieldhibby]

No interest on what any deluded politician says. What the Institute for Fiscal Studies says interests me though.

My point was that this administration has chosen their priorities in terms of spending. Nursery isn't a priority. The ex Green Party leader called it spot on.

That IFS study effectively tells us Scotland is doomed.Seriously, its such a bleak outlook for Scotland I was left wondering how we manage to function.No money,no youth,oil finished was pretty much what it said.In a study funded by The ESRC.

So at a time when Osbourne is slashing and burning throughout The United Kingdom and parallel to that, the sick man of The UK is thinking about leaving and taking it's benefit scrounging old age pensioners with it, they still want to keep us.Why?Because The Tory party is renowned for its loving nature to Scotland?

Give me one pragmatic reason why The Tory party want to keep a benefit junkie?

 

[Jack]

Why is it flippant? They have clearly chosen other priorities in terms of how they spend their budget. You maybe believe that us divorced from UK plc would see Scotland plc have a greater budget with more cash to spend but I agree with the experts that that will not be the case. And even if it was the case I see no case to end three hundred years of a successful marriage.

And I am not talking of the respective campaign costs. I am talking of the costs of promoting the white paper through print and outdoor media etc.

With regards to the WP the programme of making this and other documents available is in line with what Westminster has done in the past to inform.

I'll be delighted to receive the Westminster WP when its published so I can see what their proposals are in the event of a no vote. I doubt it will be more of the same.

In the opinion of a government expert 40 years ago an independent Scotland could have become one of the most powerful, richest, influential countries in the world.

Any thoughts on the McCrone Report?

 

[7 Hills]

Since 1999 more powers have been devolved and more will continue to be. Too many are not aware of what powers we actually have. The big policy announcement last week of how an independent Scotland would have this kind of nursery education etc etc. Power that is already devolved and the reason why we currently don't have the nursery vision that was outlined is because the SNP haven't used their powers to give it!

How do you come to that conclusion? http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4216-no-devo-max-says-cameron-even-if-scots-vote-for-it

 

[Smurf]

How do you come to that conclusion? http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4216-no-devo-max-says-cameron-even-if-scots-vote-for-it

The Scotland Act 2012 gave extra powers. No? Labour will publish in the new year plans for lots more to be devolved.

 

[7 Hills]

The Scotland Act 2012 gave extra powers. No? Labour will publish in the new year plans for lots more to be devolved.

And when exactly do you expect the Labour party to actually be in a position to deliver?

 

[Nex]

 

[Smurf]

So all cuts should have been opposed? Where's the money coming from?

 

[aggie]

No interest on what any deluded politician says. What the Institute for Fiscal Studies says interests me though.

Funny you should say that. I went to the conference in question. Every single one if the four speakers conceded that we contribute more per capita than the rest of the UK (9% more, as it goes), than it is beyond argument that we can function perfectly well as an indy, that the UK and the EU would be acting against their own self-interests to play vindictive hardball against us.

They also conceded that the terrifying deficit was based on us following UK policies for the next SIXTY YEARS, which kind of misses the point entirely.

Furthermore, every single speaker referred to us - and I quote - as "a small rich country".

Of course, you won't have seen that in the media; what you instead get is the Daily Mail twat who was sat three seats along from me splashing "black hole" across their front page.

Maybe you should take your own advice and ignore not only the politicians, but also the soundbites carefully chosen for you by the MSM.

The reality is that anyone with half a brain and a social conscience, who can put their children's future ahead of a hypothetical guess at the monthly contents of their own wallet, and who does a modicum of independent research will find the case unanswerable. Independence is simply the logical position.

Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to do that.

 

[egb_hibs]

in short Scotland rejects both cutting spending and raising revenues. And these people are to run our finances. I am less heartened by this than I suppose I am meant to be.

 

[Jack]

in short Scotland rejects both cutting spending and raising revenues. And these people are to run our finances. I am less heartened by this than I suppose I am meant to be.

Smurfy has ignored it. Would you like to comment on the Scottish Executives McCrone Report?

 

[egb_hibs]

Smurfy has ignored it. Would you like to comment on the Scottish Executives McCrone Report?

I have not had time to read it. However I would remind you that unlike Smurfy I will be voting yes and my skepticism comes from a wish to reconcile my head with my heart, which is a different motive than his. What i would observe after a quick google of the report is that it is not 1974 and in any case - albeit without reading - it, it takes more than a natural resources windfall to be a Switzerland (I mention due to comparisons google suggests are made in the repot) or indeed a Norway, given that their prosperity is much more linked to that starting position than is the Swiss example.

My concern remains as it is; if yes prevails as I hope, it will lead to the complete opposite of what it is being sold one - after a very brutal period of failure before that need is recognised. I can live with this because I believe the UK is screwed anyway, but I dislike the fact that as I see it, the yes argument is relying on totally misleading people as to what it will deliver.

I would like my fellow yes-ers or indeed anyone to persuade me I'm wrong, rather than shouting at me. I simply fail to see how we can deliver an economic utopia on the basis of an oil windfall which I suspect is no shangri la - and even if it was would, without cultural changes, lead toa Venezuela rather than Norway situation - plus some banks propped up by Uk taxpayers.

 

[Blackley]

I have not had time to read it. However I would remind you that unlike Smurfy I will be voting yes and my skepticism comes from a wish to reconcile my head with my heart, which is a different motive than his. What i would observe after a quick google of the report is that it is not 1974 and in any case - albeit without reading - it, it takes more than a natural resources windfall to be a Switzerland (I mention due to comparisons google suggests are made in the repot) or indeed a Norway, given that their prosperity is much more linked to that starting position than is the Swiss example.

My concern remains as it is; if yes prevails as I hope, it will lead to the complete opposite of what it is being sold one - after a very brutal period of failure before that need is recognised. I can live with this because I believe the UK is screwed anyway, but I dislike the fact that as I see it, the yes argument is relying on totally misleading people as to what it will deliver.

I would like my fellow yes-ers or indeed anyone to persuade me I'm wrong, rather than shouting at me. I simply fail to see how we can deliver an economic utopia on the basis of an oil windfall which I suspect is no shangri la - and even if it was would, without cultural changes, lead toa Venezuela rather than Norway situation - plus some banks propped up by Uk taxpayers.

I believe the oil shortage is a red herring. They're liars. There's plenty oil and gas.

 

[Smurf]

With regards to the WP the programme of making this and other documents available is in line with what Westminster has done in the past to inform.

I'll be delighted to receive the Westminster WP when its published so I can see what their proposals are in the event of a no vote. I doubt it will be more of the same.

In the opinion of a government expert 40 years ago an independent Scotland could have become one of the most powerful, richest, influential countries in the world.

Any thoughts on the McCrone Report?

And we are in the UK one of the most powerful, influential countries in the world. Fifth biggest economy IIRC. Not too bad for a wee island.

 

[Jack]

And we are in the UK one of the most powerful, influential countries in the world. Fifth biggest economy IIRC. Not too bad for a wee island.

I think we were all that influential some time ago but it was interesting to see the Boy David snubbed and ticked off by a small African nation I think it was the other week.

We spend cash and join in any war/dispute that's going and for that mainly the USA are grateful. Our influence only counts if we agree with the yanks, it has all but gone and our power, yur having a laugh!

The UK is not powerful, not in any respect. We're not even in the same league as the big boys and the sooner we appreciate that, as part of the UK or independent, the better.

 

[egb_hibs]

I think we were all that influential some time ago but it was interesting to see the Boy David snubbed and ticked off by a small African nation I think it was the other week.

We spend cash and join in any war/dispute that's going and for that mainly the USA are grateful. Our influence only counts if we agree with the yanks, it has all but gone and our power, yur having a laugh!

The UK is not powerful, not in any respect. We're not even in the same league as the big boys and the sooner we appreciate that, as part of the UK or independent, the better.

One thing that disturbs me is some nats seem to long for the insignificance on the world stage and the absolving of responsibility it brings. I suppose it would allow endless sanctimonious sniping at those who actually have to do stuff, while we don't have to do anything and can still rely on the former to protect us; how very Scottish right enough.

 

[Jack]

One thing that disturbs me is some nats seem to long for the insignificance on the world stage and the absolving of responsibility it brings. I suppose it would allow endless sanctimonious sniping at those who actually have to do stuff, while we don't have to do anything and can still rely on the former to protect us; how very Scottish right enough.

Don't think its just the Nats eeg. I think there's a growing realisation the world is a very different place to what it was even 20/30 years ago and the balance of power in terms of 'might' has been over taken by 2 terrorists rowing up the Thames with a dirty bomb, or a 14 year old kid sitting at his PC orchestrating a cyber attack.

 

[Nex]

in short Scotland rejects both cutting spending and raising revenues. And these people are to run our finances. I am less heartened by this than I suppose I am meant to be.

In short Scotland rejects raising revenues by gouging money from the poorest and most vulnerable of society as opposed to making sure that the large corporations and the rich and powerful pay their taxes.

Surely even you can't disagree with that sentiment. Well unless you are living in a gold plated mansion and sit seething about how the fox hunting ban ruined your life.


Not to mention that Scotland gets less money back from London than it pays to London in taxes so we should have more money for public spending as is.

One thing that disturbs me is some nats seem to long for the insignificance on the world stage and the absolving of responsibility it brings.

We are already insignificant. Actually we are LESS than insignificant because we have no say what so ever at the moment.

Westminster sends our soldiers to die at the drop of a hat so they can play at still being a world power when they themselves are insignificant. The UK military spending is massive yet at almost every level things are not fit for purpose.

A modern Scottish military, especially a Navy akin to the likes of Norways and a modern airforce, would be far more capable when it came to things like helping out in disasters.

Outside of military force people are still going to take note if a Scottish person has a good point to make on a world topic just as much as they do now if it was coming from a Scot from an Independent Scotland. Just look at Scotlands position at the forefront of renewable energy technology ... while Westminister are removing the Scottish Governments powers on renewable energy.

 

[7 Hills]

Here's Labour man Dr. Michael Kelly's take on further devolved powers for Scotland:

"When Yes loses, as it will, its supporters should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional powers for Holyrood. That will simply keep the argument open and continue the slide away from the Union. Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of Holyroods powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of government restored. Is there a unionist brave enough publicly to take that position? Surely it must tempt Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw?"

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-an-all-or-nothing-independence-vote-1-3034293

:pf:

 

[Jack]

Here's Labour man Dr. Michael Kelly's take on further devolved powers for Scotland:

"When Yes loses, as it will, its supporters should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional powers for Holyrood. That will simply keep the argument open and continue the slide away from the Union. Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of Holyroods powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of government restored. Is there a unionist brave enough publicly to take that position? Surely it must tempt Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw?"

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-an-all-or-nothing-independence-vote-1-3034293

:pf:

It's what they all think. Surprised one of them was pished enough to actually say it.

 

[Smurf]

It's what they all think. Surprised one of them was pished enough to actually say it.

Is it really what "They all think"? Where is your proof of that?

 

[Jack]

Is it really what "They all think"? Where is your proof of that?

I'm afraid that won't be possible until there's a breakout of honesty among politicians

 

[7 Hills]

One thing that disturbs me is some nats seem to long for the insignificance on the world stage and the absolving of responsibility it brings. I suppose it would allow endless sanctimonious sniping at those who actually have to do stuff, while we don't have to do anything and can still rely on the former to protect us; how very Scottish right enough.

There really is no need for Scotland to be "insignificant" or for her to "absolve responsibility" on the World stage. This "wee" country is filthy rich in natural resources, but more crucially - I believe - she has a fair mind and a passionate, moral heart. How about leading the rest of the World by example rather than by posturing, sabre-rattling and tilting at windmills overseas? There are still untapped oil fields around Shetland and off the West coast of Scotland. Whilst we can't rely on the proceeds of a fossilised mineral sludge indefinitely, I believe that we can set up an oil fund to benefit Scotland in the short term and, in the long term, exploit our endless potential for renewable energy.

To sum up: Aye - have a Dream! tbutchert

 

[aggie]

One thing that disturbs me is some nats seem to long for the insignificance on the world stage and the absolving of responsibility it brings. I suppose it would allow endless sanctimonious sniping at those who actually have to do stuff, while we don't have to do anything and can still rely on the former to protect us; how very Scottish right enough.

Aye, good yin, Eedge.

"Significance" on the world stage is measured in nothing other than economic power. "Responsibility" is measured in nothing other than desire to protect vested interests. The ability to exercise that power and responsibility is measured in nothing other than planes and bombs.

Truly altruistic and humanitarian measures simply do not require anything approaching the order of military might that is employed when nations wish to impose their will on other nations. Intervening in a Rwanda could be achieved with a degree of force many countries around the world could have exercised independently, not just the "significant" ones.

Furthermore, the question is asked so often it has become a cliche: "protect us from whom?"

There's no point in citing the chimera of terrorism, because the simple fact is all the guns, planes, bombs, drones and troops in the world cannot prevent 9/11s, Oklahomas, 7/7s, Glasgow airports. Huge and "significant" military might is now nothing other than an instrument of domination.

"Absolving of responsibility"; "Those who actually have to do stuff" Give me a f**king break, man.

As for us longing for the insignificance allowing us to absolve ourselves of responsibility - f**k you, man. What have you done, like? Picked up a gun? Pushed a button? Nah, didnae think so. The only people who are endowed with any responsibility are the suits who make the decisions, and the poor gadgies who have to execute them.

Last time I looked, we didn't vote for wars, but we get them anyway.

 

[Smurf]

No doubt this respected guy is at it too..

A Little Encouragement for Yes: Ipsos MORI Post-White Paper Poll | What Scotland Thinks

- - - Updated - - -

Aye, good yin, Eedge.

"Significance" on the world stage is measured in nothing other than economic power. "Responsibility" is measured in nothing other than desire to protect vested interests. The ability to exercise that power and responsibility is measured in nothing other than planes and bombs.

Truly altruistic and humanitarian measures simply do not require anything approaching the order of military might that is employed when nations wish to impose their will on other nations. Intervening in a Rwanda could be achieved with a degree of force many countries around the world could have exercised independently, not just the "significant" ones.

Furthermore, the question is asked so often it has become a cliche: "protect us from whom?"

There's no point in citing the chimera of terrorism, because the simple fact is all the guns, planes, bombs, drones and troops in the world cannot prevent 9/11s, Oklahomas, 7/7s, Glasgow airports. Huge and "significant" military might is now nothing other than an instrument of domination.

"Absolving of responsibility"; "Those who actually have to do stuff" Give me a f**king break, man.

As for us longing for the insignificance allowing us to absolve ourselves of responsibility - f**k you, man. What have you done, like? Picked up a gun? Pushed a button? Nah, didnae think so. The only people who are endowed with any responsibility are the suits who make the decisions, and the poor gadgies who have to execute them.

Last time I looked, we didn't vote for wars, but we get them anyway.

Did we vote for war in 1914 or 1939?