Posted: Oct 03, 2017 3:13 pm
mrjonno wrote:What exactly can the federated state/nation Scotland not do that Texas/Bavaria or New South Wales can do?
Texas has its own state military/national guard so thats one, do you want Scotland to have that?
Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and are reversible, ultimately residing with the central government. Thus, the state remains de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute. In federal systems, by contrast, sub-unit government is guaranteed in the constitution, so the powers of the sub-units cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the central government (i.e. without the consent of the sub-units being granted through the process of constitutional amendment). The sub-units therefore have a lower degree of protection under devolution than under federalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
Seems like a reasonable definition, as demonstrated recently even when we are told by UK parties that something is being written into law with regards to devolution (Sewel Convention) it is proven in court to be a political trick with no legal weight at all. Holyrood, in it's entirely, is utterly disposable.
In terms of what powers, a simple google search:
Some of the powers delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution include the following:
the power to coin money.
regulate commerce with foreign nations.
regulate interstate commerce.
establish post offices.
punish crimes committed on the high seas.
establish import duties and tariffs.
more
As I said, words have meaning, federalism isn't the same as devolution. I'm not pushing federalism for Scotland btw. I'd prefer independence.