Independence- how was it for you?

[Redsunflower]

Linus, your independence story sounds so civilised and lovely! Maybe ours will be like that...I can only hope.

Do you not mind having the Queen's head on your cash though? :-)

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

Linus, your independence story sounds so civilised and lovely! Maybe ours will be like that...I can only hope.

Do you not mind having the Queen's head on your cash though? :-)

Not really. It's part of our heritage. That said, I am glad to see that over the last few years, with the introduction of "plastic money" (literally the bills are made of a polymer that doesn't wrinkle and is impossible to counterfeit) more "Canadian" images have been put on the bills. I think the intention is to get the Royals off before Charles possibly ascends. Those ears..

I do keep hoping that the Acadian Grand Derangement ends up on a bill one day. Or more aboriginal heroes/images. Often the images are of wildlife (animals, flowers) or sports (hockey, hockey, hockey)

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

Linus, your independence story sounds so civilised and lovely! Maybe ours will be like that...I can only hope.

Do you not mind having the Queen's head on your cash though? :-)

Oh.. and it wasn't that civilized (Trudeau was involved and swearing was commonplace) but probably moreso than the US. Then again, Canada is a nation built on committee meetings having meetings about meetings about meetings...

[Redsunflower]

I had no idea what the Acadian Grand Derangement was until I googled it there, my goodness, what a history, so important to remember these things. Personally I would love our money to be covered in flowers, so pretty. :-)

About Charles and his ears ascending, it'll never happen, the throne will most likely be passed on to William. Which is kind of a shame 'cos Harry would make a much more interesting king. Or we could just ditch the lot of them. I have no idea what link there would be with the royal family if we go independent, there are a lot of royalists here. Hmm.

I was having a think about how none of this would be happening if we had a more liberal government in London. It really wouldn't and I hope everyone understands the difference. Am i voting for independence because the promises suit my political ideals? Because I want free childcare for every mum who wants to work, because I want that blimmin' nuclear base moved AWAY from the most populated area of Scotland (where I used to live), because I want a minimum wage that rises with inflation and keeps its value, because I loved it when the SNP gave everyone free prescriptions, because I love how different the Scottish National Health Service is from the English one? Do I have enough faith that Scotland could manage independently?

Am I being irresponsible??

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

I had no idea what the Acadian Grand Derangement was until I googled it there, my goodness, what a history, so important to remember these things. Personally I would love our money to be covered in flowers, so pretty. :-)

About Charles and his ears ascending, it'll never happen, the throne will most likely be passed on to William. Which is kind of a shame 'cos Harry would make a much more interesting king. Or we could just ditch the lot of them. I have no idea what link there would be with the royal family if we go independent, there are a lot of royalists here. Hmm.

I was having a think about how none of this would be happening if we had a more liberal government in London. It really wouldn't and I hope everyone understands the difference. Am i voting for independence because the promises suit my political ideals? Because I want free childcare for every mum who wants to work, because I want that blimmin' nuclear base moved AWAY from the most populated area of Scotland (where I used to live), because I want a minimum wage that rises with inflation and keeps its value, because I loved it when the SNP gave everyone free prescriptions, because I love how different the Scottish National Health Service is from the English one? Do I have enough faith that Scotland could manage independently?

Am I being irresponsible??

No and that's part of independence. The ability for a government to look after it population, warts and all. I'm surprised that none of that can't be addressed even now. Is London preventing these things from happening?

[Redsunflower]

Originally Posted by Linus

No and that's part of independence. The ability for a government to look after it population, warts and all. I'm surprised that none of that can't be addressed even now. Is London preventing these things from happening?

London are headed off in a completely different direction from Scotland. The English NHS will be dismantled in my lifetime, no question, they are headed towards a private health care system similar to the States, I think. In Scotland we want to keep our NHS and this tension has been around for a long time. It seems that independence is one way to achieve this.

Faslane base has housed nuclear submarines since the 60s and there has long been controversy about this. There have been many peace protestors keeping a camp going up there for almost as long (they make a nice cup of tea when you visit them) but the main thing is Scottish people don't want this base here at all and if it has to exist, it needs to be moved away from Glasgow and out of Scotland. The SNP are trying to promise this but London are trying to declare the area sovereign UK territory which means the base could stay even if independence were declared. I can't see this happening, the strength of feeling in opposition to this up here is massive. But who knows.

As for the childcare situation, this is a number one factor in the poverty trap for families, especially single mums and there is a theme here, social justice, a more equal distribution of wealth, a better chance for everyone. In Scotland we love it and want more of it.

I have never been patriotic my whole entire life but the thought of this happening makes me so proud to be Scottish and so excited I can hardly breathe.

How about a little saltire smilie, just for the next few weeks?

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

About Charles and his ears ascending, it'll never happen, the throne will most likely be passed on to William.

Really? What would make this happen? School this uninformed guy, please!

I am going to take the course Corkey posted. It starts in two days. Anyone else want to take it and then we can discuss it? I might be biting off more than I can chew (just busy life wise), but I would like to try to see if I could fit it in. Perhaps a thread for it?

[Redsunflower]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Really? What would make this happen? School this uninformed guy, please!

I am going to take the course Corkey posted. It starts in two days. Anyone else want to take it and then we can discuss it? I might be biting off more than I can chew (just busy life wise), but I would like to try to see if I could fit it in. Perhaps a thread for it?

Great idea to take the course Dapper, not sure I will as I'm being bombarded on a daily basis with all this stuff, but if you start a thread I will most certainly join in the discussion.

There has long been speculation about whether or not Charles should ever become King. He is so unpopular, he treated Princess Diana so badly and everyone loved her so much. And of course all that drama was hyped up when she then died. The Queen has managed to dodge dealing with this difficulty by refusing to retire. She's in her 80s and a frail old thing but she keeps going anyway. Even once the dust settled and Charles was able to marry Camilla he's never regained the respect and credibility that being King would require and no way in a million years would Camilla ever be accepted as Princess of Wales. (Her title now is something else, can't remember off the top of my head.)

Then William married Kate and those two are pretty much the new face of the royal family. They're like posh and becks. He was so handsome, everyone fancied him when he was young (looks a bit too much like his dad now) and Kate is beautiful and stylish and ordinary women can relate to her, being a commoner. And when she gave birth to their son it was the icing on the cake.

All of this pretty much set the stage for William to take the title of King. Only that would require a change to constitutional law so the issue continues to be dodged expertly by the Queen who is still not retired aged 82. She is currently job sharing a little with Charles, giving him some head of state responsibilities, not much, enough maybe to shut him up after he's waited so long, and promising he can take the job when she's 87. By which time Charles will be 70 years old and the oldest person to ever take the throne, by a mile. It's been a lifetime of damage limitation for her, I think.

So there you have it. A 21st century royal carry on. If the royal family are to be used as leverage in the independence debate, Charles would hinder and William and Kate would help. And the royal family are all about watching their popularity.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

Great idea to take the course Dapper, not sure I will as I'm being bombarded on a daily basis with all this stuff, but if you start a thread I will most certainly join in the discussion.

There has long been speculation about whether or not Charles should ever become King. He is so unpopular, he treated Princess Diana so badly and everyone loved her so much. And of course all that drama was hyped up when she then died. The Queen has managed to dodge dealing with this difficulty by refusing to retire. She's in her 80s and a frail old thing but she keeps going anyway. Even once the dust settled and Charles was able to marry Camilla he's never regained the respect and credibility that being King would require and no way in a million years would Camilla ever be accepted as Princess of Wales. (Her title now is something else, can't remember off the top of my head.)

Then William married Kate and those two are pretty much the new face of the royal family. They're like posh and becks. He was so handsome, everyone fancied him when he was young (looks a bit too much like his dad now) and Kate is beautiful and stylish and ordinary women can relate to her, being a commoner. And when she gave birth to their son it was the icing on the cake.

All of this pretty much set the stage for William to take the title of King. Only that would require a change to constitutional law so the issue continues to be dodged expertly by the Queen who is still not retired aged 82. She is currently job sharing a little with Charles, giving him some head of state responsibilities, not much, enough maybe to shut him up after he's waited so long, and promising he can take the job when she's 87. By which time Charles will be 70 years old and the oldest person to ever take the throne, by a mile. It's been a lifetime of damage limitation for her, I think.

So there you have it. A 21st century royal carry on. If the royal family are to be used as leverage in the independence debate, Charles would hinder and William and Kate would help. And the royal family are all about watching their popularity.

I understand why no one wants Charles. I was wondering about what needs to put in place in order to skip a heir. Can the Queen just decide to skip him? If so, when is the last time this has happened? I suppose I could google the above and not bother you with this.

[Redsunflower]

Sorry, misunderstood your question, it's never happened but the Queen is using tactics to make it happen, for the benefit of the monarchy. Charles will be way too old by the time it rolls round for him.

Originally Posted by Redsunflower

Great idea to take the course Dapper, not sure I will as I'm being bombarded on a daily basis with all this stuff, but if you start a thread I will most certainly join in the discussion.

There has long been speculation about whether or not Charles should ever become King. He is so unpopular, he treated Princess Diana so badly and everyone loved her so much. And of course all that drama was hyped up when she then died. The Queen has managed to dodge dealing with this difficulty by refusing to retire. She's in her 80s and a frail old thing but she keeps going anyway. Even once the dust settled and Charles was able to marry Camilla he's never regained the respect and credibility that being King would require and no way in a million years would Camilla ever be accepted as Princess of Wales. (Her title now is something else, can't remember off the top of my head.)

Then William married Kate and those two are pretty much the new face of the royal family. They're like posh and becks. He was so handsome, everyone fancied him when he was young (looks a bit too much like his dad now) and Kate is beautiful and stylish and ordinary women can relate to her, being a commoner. And when she gave birth to their son it was the icing on the cake.

All of this pretty much set the stage for William to take the title of King. Only that would require a change to constitutional law so the issue continues to be dodged expertly by the Queen who is still not retired aged 82. She is currently job sharing a little with Charles, giving him some head of state responsibilities, not much, enough maybe to shut him up after he's waited so long, and promising he can take the job when she's 87. By which time Charles will be 70 years old and the oldest person to ever take the throne, by a mile. It's been a lifetime of damage limitation for her, I think.

So there you have it. A 21st century royal carry on. If the royal family are to be used as leverage in the independence debate, Charles would hinder and William and Kate would help. And the royal family are all about watching their popularity.

As an English person, living in England I have to remind you all that this is a Scottish person's opinion and not one I hear with any regularity except from those north of the border.
I've never heard this opinion from anyone I know, not seen anything in the news about how we 'dislike' Charles. I'm not a monarchist btw. I think Charles will be king, even if only briefly.

[MsTinkerbelly]

According to news sources the vote was no!

Wow