I guessed that. But there all power not given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States.
Only by a non-standard interpretation of the Constitution. In reality, the states can do nothing contrary to the will of the feds.
Who won the Eugenics Wars? 
You’re twisting the facts. A neighbouring country does not make laws for Scotland, or keep nuclear weapons in their waters, in any meaningful sense. As you well know, Scottish constituencies are represented in Westminster and Scottish people also benefit from a Scottish Parliament. The result is that Scottish MPs can vote on any legislation affecting England, whereas only Scottish MSPs can vote on many bills than affect only Scotland. The UK is currently a single sovereign nation, so talk of “a neighbouring country” is just silly and deliberately misrepresentative.
The other point that always comes to mind (which I have already mentioned in this thread) is that, in a democracy, you can always find some part of an area and say “they didn’t vote for the government!” In the event of an independent Scotland, why shouldn’t people from Inverness complain that “they” in Edinburgh are making all the laws? Or why shouldn’t London - frequently demonized by ignoramuses as the neoliberal, Tory capital of the world - complain that they actually voted Labour, and yet they have Tories and Lib Dems in Whitehall? Many people in Scotland didn’t vote for the SNP - why shouldn’t they complain? The “yes” side claims to represent Scotland better than the “no” side, but they seem determined to ignore the fact that the majority of people in Scotland didn’t vote for the SNP in the UK general election or the Scottish general election, and neither do they say they’ll vote “yes” in the referendum. But obviously, no true Scotsman would vote “no” (or Tory).
And the difference in politics is not that great. It seems to me that the SNP and its supporters have been quite successful in portraying the recent left-leaning politics in Scotland as an integral part of Scottish culture. “We’re different from them down south”. I’d be interested to see what sort of politics Scotland has in 10 years, if independence does happen. I’d be willing to bet real money that it will have swung a lot further towards the centre than it is now.
I think you can safely assume I know all that. :rolleyes:
Kings and Queens rule countries. He was complaining about allowing someone other than presumably a Scot rule Scotland. On the SNP model, not only would someone else rule Scotland but it would be a German!
But… the Queen is neither the ruler of the country nor German.
Strange. I thought that cannabis trading was banned by the Feds. Must be something else being sold in Colorado. Imagine if Scotland wanted to decriminalise drugs- they can’t even reduce the drinkdrive limit.
Well, the German bit you can treat as a joke.
But why do you think the current monarch does not rule? Not govern, but rule?
Federal law is unenforced but still exists.
The political history of the Scottish Government since devolution has been to the left of Blair’s Labour (LibLab coalition) and the ConLib coalition (SNP). I suspect this will continue.
It is worth reading the Daily Mail on Scotland- it has to be censored severely of its rabid right wingery to sell in Scotland.
If you want to draw that distinction, then I think you can assume that the referendum questions is about who governs Scotland, not who rules it.
Interesting to see the Feds try to enforce it via the courts. The Constitution is fairly clear about the matter.
I doubt the Daily Mail is often worth reading in any form.
But the future of Scottish politics is pure speculation on both our parts, and the least important point of my post. What about the rest of it? You make a lot of claims, then leave them undefended.
She doesn’t rule in any meaningful sense. It’s not that kind of “rule” that many people in Scotland are worried about. If there is some technical distinction between “rule” and “govern”, I must admit I’m ignorant of it, although I understand what you’re saying.
She is, though, the rightful (as much as such things can be “rightful”) monarch of Scotland as much as England. Do Scottish people generally see her as an outsider? I didn’t think so.
The Queen reigns; she does not rule.
The good guys, obviously.
Might Queenie agree to reign over an independent Scotland just so she could keep Balmoral?
I’m pretty sure Balmoral is the private property of the royal family rather than the Crown. So I guess she gets to keep it whatever happens.
Victoria’s husband Albert bought it - sight unseen apparently!
Yes, Prince Albert purchased it. Over recent years the Estate has purchased additional small parcels of land adjoining as it came on the market.
You are misinformed: no worries though. The Feds are exercising prosecutorial discretion. California had a medical marijuana law for years and the Feds have to decide when and whether to enforce Federal law.
Here’s a relevant legal discussion: How to Open a Medical Marijuana Dispensary The Laws in California
Here’s a federal action against a medical marijuana dispensary from last year. It was apparently within 1,000 feet of a school. California Medical Marijuana Crackdown Ramps Up As More Dispensaries Targeted For Closure | HuffPost San Francisco
And here’s a 2014 article explaining how Oakland wanted to permit a medical marijuana growing facility, but was stopped by the Feds: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/16/6235633/boom-and-bust-in-californias-medical.html
That said, California has fairly high marginal tax rates relative to the rest of the nation. I find it odd that Scottish residents claim to have different preferences than the UK as a whole, but seem to be happy with the levels of taxation that they pay. My take is that breaking up a country isn’t a decision that should be done on a whim and the fact that Scotland has settled upon identical taxes with the rest of the country indicates that their policy preferences aren’t all that different. The devo model has a lot of untapped potential.
As for ideology, if Scotland leaves the UK, expect Britain to shift rightwards, and Scotland to do the same after a couple of years.
I think you’re being kind. If Scotland leaves the UK, I see it as rapidly becoming one of those semi-kleptocrat nations where the entrenched elite consolidates all the political/economic/landowning power, characterized by lots of foreign temporary workers, mass emigration by young Scottish people, and renting rather than buying of property by families. (Of course, ordinary people will be allowed the “freedom” to do things like pass city council resolutions declaring solidarity with the peoples of Eastern Slobbovia.)