Independence- how was it for you?

[Redsunflower]

There's an exciting thing happening over here in Scotland. On September 18th everyone aged 16 and over living in Scotland will be invited to vote in a referendum to decide whether or not Scotland should become independent from the UK.

As you can imagine, this is a pretty big deal!

My initial response was YES YES YES!!! This is mainly due to the UK government not reflecting the political climate in Scotland and I would like a government that takes into account the opinion of the millions of people who live here. It's that simple. Other people have different views and I respect that. The debate over here is heating up nicely however the 'no' campaign seems to be a touch defensive and not presenting their arguments very well.

I met a 14 year old boy from Texas the other day. We talked about a lot of stuff and when the subject of independence came up he said 'we've been independent for a long time now and I would highly recommend it'. After almost keeling over from shock at having met a politicized 14 year old, I got to thinking. Maybe I should speak to more people who know what this is like to get a more full picture.

So I realise it happened a very long time ago in the States, and I know the issues over there are very different from here and certainly were all those years ago, but I would really appreciate your opinion, my American friends, and what I would like to ask is this.

Are there any negatives to becoming independent?
Would they be a reason to NOT have become independent?

Even as I write, my questions sound ridiculous. I think I know the answer already. I'd still like to hear it though. :-)

Thanks everyone. xx

[*Anya*]

Ever since I saw Braveheart in the mid-90's, I have wondered about Scotland and independence from the UK.

My youngest brother married a Brit and her conservative family was very much against Scotland's independence. I knew it was an off-limits discussion topic.

Even though you asked us for our opinion, I would really like to hear your perspective on why there are still folks in your country that want to vote no for independence.

Thank you.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I would think primarily financial concerns would apply.

For instance:

Gold backs up our monetary system; what if anything is in Scotland to back up your money, or is it based upon resources kept in England?

[Corkey]

There's a course on this very topic.



https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref

[*Anya*]

I would think primarily financial concerns would apply.

For instance:

Gold backs up our monetary system; what if anything is in Scotland to back up your money, or is it based upon resources kept in England?

I did remember about Nixon and found this:


"A true gold standard came to fruition in 1900 with the passage of the Gold Standard Act. The gold standard effectively came to an end in 1933 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed private gold ownership (except for the purposes of jewelery). The Bretton Woods System, enacted in 1946 created a system of fixed exchange rates that allowed governments to sell their gold to the United States treasury at the price of $35/ounce.

The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed. The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time."


http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

[Gráinne]

The little I know of Scottish history: 300 years after Braveheart, James VI came down to take the empty English throne. A century after that, the two countries were united. Sometime, Northern Ireland was added to form "Great Britain". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's generally what happened (I think).

My paternal grandmother was born in Campbeltown and was very proud of her Scottish (not British and def. not English) heritage!

American History 101: There were many colonists who remained loyal to the British and didn't want full independence but more autonomy. Britain offered economic security and profit; independence would mean starting from scratch. Same with forming a government and constitution. Many colonists came over for religious reasons and didn't necessarily want to form a brand-new country. Many felt that we shared the same culture and were one people.

The independence cause began when Britain wanted to tax the colonies for their wars and business ventures, and the patriots wanted to keep that money for their own. Britain also annoyingly appointed the governors of the colonies, a task the patriots wished to do for themselves. The colonists also felt they should have some say in Parliament, which didn't happen. Many of the patriots were reluctant to go to war, and it was really the intervention of France that resulted in independence. Thirty years later, a "mini-war" came out partly from meddling over the border from British Canada. My family tree is chock full of these "Loyalists" who beat it for Canada after the Revolutionary War.

I sometimes wonder if the Revolution hadn't happened, if we would today be under a Canada or Australia-like system. I'm not sure how those countries "relate" to England or how they are different from N. Ireland or Scotland, but they have bigger ties to England than we do; recognizing the Queen and all that. Is it possible for Scotland not to be totally independent but to become a commonwealth such as Canada? Or is it all or nothing?

[MsTinkerbelly]

I did remember about Nixon and found this:


"A true gold standard came to fruition in 1900 with the passage of the Gold Standard Act. The gold standard effectively came to an end in 1933 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed private gold ownership (except for the purposes of jewelery). The Bretton Woods System, enacted in 1946 created a system of fixed exchange rates that allowed governments to sell their gold to the United States treasury at the price of $35/ounce.

The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed. The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time."


http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

If you're very lucky, you learn somethng new every day!

Thankyou for the article, i really enjoyed it.:bunchflowers:

[Redsunflower]

*Anya* most of my friends, family and work colleagues are going to vote 'yes' so mostly we hold the same views. Of people I've spoken to who are going to vote 'no' the main issue seems to be fear; fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of taking a risk. Also, 'no' voters seem to be non-Scottish people who live here and older people which is just my observation and not necessarily how it is everywhere. There seem to be no strong arguments for the union that I can find and surely there must be some!

We live next door to Ireland who have really struggled financially with being independent from the UK. Scottish people know this but we don't seem to be concerned, the question is something bigger.

Corkey, thanks for the link and helping to inform people. There is loads of stuff online about what's happening over here, it's really interesting.

Grainne, thanks for that info. The question for the referendum is 'should Scotland be an independent country?' There were some options for various degrees of devolution but this is the question decided upon. Commonwealth membership will not be automatic so I guess we'd need to wait and see.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts everyone, much appreciated!

[Redsunflower]

The debate continues over here. The last statistics I read showed 48% yes 52% no. This is going to be extremely close indeed.

An argument I'm encountering a lot concerns racism. It is being argued that one of the main reasons Scottish people want independence is because they are racist against English people and therefore want to dissociate completely. This is not my experience but I'm not sure what to make of the argument as it seems to be stirring up a lot of resentment. The Scottish National Party have always been accused of being a bit racist but their left-leaning politics are a much better reflection of political feeling in Scotland. I've never had a feeling that the SNP think we are superior to England. Hmmm...

[Redsunflower]

Also meant to say *Anya* that the Braveheart movie is so historically inaccurate that it's practically a work of fiction. Take a look at this.

http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/braveheart.html

Mostly Scottish people are aware of this as it was well debated when the movie was released. There is some debate about independence being based on the sentimental feelings evoked in movies such as this. I'm fairly sure that's not true although there are romantic ideas about how great an independent Scotland would be. Is that the same thing?

[iamkeri1]

I was born, grew up and have lived in the United States my whole life. Two hundred years ago, independence from England was of prime importance. Perhaps I am an eejit (to use a term I have often heard used by my many Canadian relatives), but honestly, I have never in my life before considered the effect of the independence of the USA from Britain. We have been separate for a long time. We grew to our rather large size as an independent country either buying, seizing, stealing or in other ways acquiring the lands that now form the USA.

However, our issues of independence come more from our separate states. We have many issues that are fought out in the government involving state control versus federal control, One of the issues that is being fought out state to state right now is same sex marriage.

We fought a civil war many years ago to prevent the dissolution of the Union, but many states still believe they have a right to secede and there is still rather frequent talk of secession. I value the Union of the United states. Also I would like to see others included in our Union, or a new type of Union, similar to the EU. I believe many of our problems with trade, immigration, smuggling, etc. would be solved by forming the North American Union (or even the American Union including South American Countries.) I see us moving inevitably toward a world government. over the next couple of centuries.

The main problem I see in separation of Scotland from the UK is financial. How will you determine who owns what? Will the British Royalty cede to Scotland all the land they own there? What about the EU? Will you be admitted automatically, or have to apply as a new separate Country. Will you be able to meet their rather stringent guidelines for admission? What currency will you use?

Of special interest to me is this question. Will you require a visa or passport for British citizens to travel to Scotland?

My mother was a Canadian citizen. Prior to 911, travel back and forth across our border was easy. Answer a few questions and be on your way. Now the US requires a passport for such travel. (Canada does not) This has created a rift in my family, as some of us can not afford a passport, or choose not to get one for one reason or another. So we can not all gather in one place as we used to for our annual family reunions. Could this same thing happen in Scotland if you separate?

Since I favor consolidation of governments, I would not be in favor of this dissolution of ties. I think there are other better solutions. One would involve the elimination of the British Royalty. To me this is a ridiculous situation. The ancestors of these people stole land from their "subjects", redistributed the wealth. mostly to themselves, but also to their supporters, and now they are practically worshiped. They are extremely wealthy in a country which routinely struggles financially, and the people pay a lot of their bills. Just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the monarchy with its rights and privileges contributes greatly to unrest between England and any other country in the commonwealth (comprised as it were, of commoners, while they are royalty and somehow superior.)

Well this certainly got long. I found it an interesting topic. Good luck as you move toward decision day
Smooches.
Keri

[Linus]

As a Canadian who went through Canada's independence from Britain in the 80s/90s, it's both thrilling and scary. While we did severe some of the more political stuff (requiring approval from the Queen for laws and such), we kept some of the heritage (e.g., changing of the guard, the figurehead of the Queen on money, etc.). I suspect the effect of independence garnering in a modern age with consensus and discussion results in a very different form of independence compared to others (aka the US and violently achieved independence). One of the "nicer" aspects is creating a modern constitution with rights for all and not just for some.

I know that it took a few years for everything to settle and, in Canada's case, it was more of a figurehead change than anything. We were already largely independent of Britain (own parliament, own ministers, own currency, etc.) and this was the final stage in garnering full independence.


iamkeri: both Canada and the US require passports when traveling between the border. (whether air, land or sea). That's been in place since 2005 or thereabouts. I don't think it'd necessarily happen to Scotland because, IIRC, they would still be part of the EU and it has an open-borders policy.

[Redsunflower]

Hi there iamkeri1

I don't think you're an eejit at all, it makes sense that you would take independence for granted, I wonder though if there's any talk about the 'bad old days' before independence?

The same sex marriage situation seems really unfair, to not have your marriage recognised if you move state or even go on holiday to another state. That makes no sense, hope it gets sorted quick.

No passports will be required for British citizens to come to Scotland, we'll be in a Common Travel Area. We won't be automatically admitted to the EU but will need to go through the application process. And the currency...don't get me started. Britain say no, we can't have the pound, it looks like there will need to be a hell of a lot of negotiation here to see how that will pan out. I just hope that we don't have to keep the nuclear submarine base at Faslane as a swap for keeping the pound. Personally I don't care and would be happy to change to the Euro.

How do you imagine getting rid of the royal family would help? Not that I'm a supporter, they are a bit ridiculous to say the least. And why do you value your union so much? I still can't think of a single reason to stay with Britain.

Smooches back at ya, and thank you so much for your interest.

:-)

[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]

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]

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]

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?

[DapperButch]

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]

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?

[Redsunflower]

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]

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.

[DapperButch]

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.

Wow, so interesting. Yes, I think Charles had no hope for England to love him after Diana was killed (well, and before that because of Camilla). Thanks for the info.

[Redsunflower]

Or Scotland, or Ireland, or Wales. ;-)

[*Anya*]

RBS 'contingency for London move'

Last updated 4 hours ago

Royal Bank of Scotland has confirmed it has made contingency plans to move its headquarters from Scotland to London if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.

A Treasury source told the BBC that it had discussed the plans with RBS.

Lloyds Banking Group also said it could shift some of its business from Scotland, after customers contacted it for clarification on their finances.

However, the banking group said it was just a legal procedure and "there would be no immediate changes or issues".

Angus Grossart, chairman of merchant bank Noble Grossart, said that people should "not panic" following the decisions made by the two banks. He told the Financial Times that the impact of a Yes vote was "severely overstated".

The statement from Lloyds said: "Lloyds Banking Group has seen an increased level of enquiries from our customers, colleagues and other stakeholders about our plans post the Scottish referendum.

"While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England. This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.

"There will be a period between the referendum and the implementation of separation, should a Yes vote be successful, that we believe is sufficient to take any necessary action."

Lloyds, in which the UK government has a 25% stake, owns Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

Jobs
The move of what Lloyds describes as "legal entities" indicates that the banking group is not suggesting there will be a mass relocation of its 16,000 Scottish-based staff. The move would simply mean that the bank would remain protected and regulated by the Bank of England.

RBS, which employs 11,500 people in Scotland, has not yet issued a statement - although there are widespread reports that the bank will clarify the details later in the day.

On Wednesday, insurance giant and pensions giant Standard Life said it was "planning for new regulated companies in England to which we could transfer parts of our business if there was a need to do so".

BBC economics editor Robert Peston said that that if RBS, 81%-owned by the UK government, moved its head office and registered office to London it "would involve some jobs moving south".

However, he said the situation with Lloyds was different: "Lloyds would move its legal home to its head office, which is already in London - and that's unlikely to have much impact on Scottish employment."

'Overreaction'
Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander told BBC2's Newsnight: "When a company like Standard Life says that it would, unfortunately, sadly, have to relocate its business to London that is not some sort of decision that they make lightly.

"They make it on the basis that they regard that as the best way to protect their customers under the new circumstances.

"When we hear Lloyds and other banks making clear that they would have to do the same, again that is not something that they say lightly. They say it having thought about it, having talked to their board and to the senior people in those companies."

First Minister Alex Salmond has described reports of banks moving out of Scotland as "nonsense" and "scaremongering".

And Mr Grossart, one of the most senior figures in Scotland's financial establishment, said people were "overreacting" to the threats of exodus of firms.

"I think it is getting out of hand," he told the Financial Times. "To hear some of the comments you almost expect people to be predicting a plague of locusts or mice next."

Do you bank with RBS or Lloyds Banking Group? What do you think of the plans? Please share your comments by emailing .

BBC © 2014

[Daktari]

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. :raspberry:
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