Independence- how was it for you?

[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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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