rickyross3359
|
The Scottish PoundThe news last night did mention that the treasury will make it harder for Scots bank to continue to issue their own notes. Apparently the Bank of England wants Scottish banks to lodge pound for pound enuff dosh to cover the money in circulation? Why should be lodge anything with the bank of England anyway.
If they had their way they would axe the Scottish notes and have us all carying the dull english ones. If they do away with the Scottish notes we might as well have f***ing Euro's cos I don't want their feffing pounds.   
|
AllanP
|
Re: The Scottish Pound | rickyross3359 wrote: | The news last night did mention that the treasury will make it harder for Scots bank to continue to issue their own notes. Apparently the Bank of England wants Scottish banks to lodge pound for pound enuff dosh to cover the money in circulation? Why should be lodge anything with the bank of England anyway.
If they had their way they would axe the Scottish notes and have us all carying the dull english ones. If they do away with the Scottish notes we might as well have f***ing Euro's cos I don't want their feffing pounds. |
I think that Euro's are going to become commonplace, sooner rather than later.
Given that the Bank of Scotland have started circulating their new design of notes which look at first glance to be not unlike Euro notes, then maybe they want us to get used to the look and feel of Euro's.
Will Scotland embrace Europe before England does? Perhaps!
Anyway, start collecting different types of new Scottish notes if you can afford it before they become obsolete, is my advice.
They might be worth more than their face value to collectors in future years.
|
BoB
|
Lifted from another forum:
I found it interesting recently when new bank notes were released across the UK. The English issued notes mentioned 'Elizabeth II' while the Scottish issued notes just said 'Elizabeth'. She may be Elizabeth II of England but she's Elizabeth I of the UK.
|
Zaf
|
I dont want bloody Euros thank you very much  and I think its terrible that the Scottish notes are under threat
|
Guest
|
When the folk in the East end of Glasgow were asked if they wanted the Euro (by the way, there is no plural..1 Euro, 10 Euro) they said they wanted to stick to the Giro
|
Zaf
|
oops, I never could speak foreign languages very well
|
Guest
|
I was pulled up about it by a banker!! 
|
Zaf
|
gawd
|
BoB
|
Maybe they are just trying to stop Alex Salmond printing them with his head on them
I don't want Euros either  Maybe they should just print a note that just says £s on it. But then what country do they say it comes from Great Britain (Not Great anymore), UK (not very united anymore), British Isles?
|
Zaf
|
god question
|
Merak
|
| BoB wrote: | Maybe they are just trying to stop Alex Salmond printing them with his head on them
|
Jeez... what a nasty thought!! Imagine having to look at that ugly mush all the time! 
|
rickyross3359
|
I don't think Alex Salmond would want his bawheid on the note s anyway. Still think we should keep the Scottish notes though. I certainly dont want bank of England ones foisted on us. I don't want any living persons heid on our notes.
|
rickyross3359
|
Oh and by the way - Alex has been eating too many mutton pies and chips this last few years - recently saw a pic of him in the 198o's he was a skinny thing. Mutton pies are really bad for ye man
|
Merak
|
To be honest I couldn't really care less who's on the money or where it's minted, so long as it's spendable.
I have noticed that are becoming euro-like. And, not sure about everywhere, but I *think* in London you can actually pay in euros if you want in highstreet shops.
|
Zaf
|
| Merak wrote: |
I have noticed that are becoming euro-like. And, not sure about everywhere, but I *think* in London you can actually pay in euros if you want in highstreet shops. |
I think you're right about that Merak
|
AllanP
|
| Zaf wrote: | | Merak wrote: |
I have noticed that are becoming euro-like. And, not sure about everywhere, but I *think* in London you can actually pay in euros if you want in highstreet shops. |
I think you're right about that Merak |
Cast your minds back to when Europe was looking for a name for their new European currency, they at the time thought of calling it the ECU.
( European Currency Unit ) Sounded a bit like a foreign footballers name.
They changed it pretty smartish though to the name we all love today - or not!
|
Guest
|
In the 70s a friend of mine worked in Saudi Arabia! He got a better exchange rate with the Scottish £ than the British...because of the oil in the North Sea!
|
rickyross3359
|
I guess an Independent Scotland would eventually go with the Euro if the time was right. Just like Ireland.
|
Zaf
|
will scotland want to be in the EU when she becomes independent?
|
BoB
|
| rickyross3359 wrote: | | I guess an Independent Scotland would eventually go with the Euro if the time was right. Just like Ireland. |
I hope not, look what happened to the prices in Ireland when it changed!
|
Bill McLaughlin
|
In or out, a renegotiation of the present situation would be needed.
I like Scottish Pounds, I'm pretty fond of the ounces too, just don't give a lot of weight to the argument 
|
BoB
|
| Bill McLaughlin wrote: |
I like Scottish Pounds, I'm pretty fond of the ounces too, just don't give a lot of weight to the argument |
Grams don't mean anything to me whatsoever
|
mwl
|
| BoB wrote: | | Bill McLaughlin wrote: |
I like Scottish Pounds, I'm pretty fond of the ounces too, just don't give a lot of weight to the argument |
Grams don't mean anything to me whatsoever |
I wonder what does mean to you   
|
rickyross3359
|
I guess that would be a decision taken if and when Scotland became independent. I understand that changing to the Euro has been almost an excuse to see prices go upwards.
|
mwl
|
| rickyross3359 wrote: | | I guess that would be a decision taken if and when Scotland became independent. I understand that changing to the Euro has been almost an excuse to see prices go upwards. |
Changing over to the euro is and will be a mistake. Since Holland change to it everything is twice what it was in the gulden
An average family income is around 2,000 euros a month after tax ect you are left with 1400. Then all the usual bills plus you have to pay 252 euros a month for sick insurance. If you have to have help with a nurse coming to help out then you have to pay 10% of what is based on your yearly combined income. I have to now pay 104 euros per month extra for the help I have with hubby, just cus our income is just a few cents above the line that ensure that you can have help.
That leave us with very little to buy food - so I have to work to earn abit extra.
|
BoB
|
I think it would be a mistake as well.
Ireland found out to its cost.
It was bad enough when then changed to decimal
Yes, I can just about remember that 
Prices climbed sharply, not just by a 1/2 pence, but by 5p sometimes 10p
The excuse used was the price of the materials had gone up by a 1 - 5p and this had to be passed on.
It was not just the one raw ingredient, it was every one so the end product went up in 5 - 10p a throw.
A penny chew (remember them) went to 1p (new pence) then went to 3p shortly after
They had to rename them
|
Merak
|
| rickyross3359 wrote: | | I guess that would be a decision taken if and when Scotland became independent. |
Might not be quite as straightforward as that. The uk is in europe as the uk, if scotland goes it's own way, it won't be part of the uk anymore and therefore not in europe under the terms that the uk is in it. So it may have to negotiate its own terms of entry to europe, assuming it would want to, which takes years I think.
|
Bill McLaughlin
|
Of course the UK couldn't be the UK without Scotland, it was created as an agreement between Scottish and English parliaments. 1707 Union of parliaments created The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Poor old Wales was included as part of England as it had been conquered.
Northern Ireland only came into the equation last Century
England wouldn't be members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain either
So there would no longer be a United Kingdom and the whole thing would be up for grabs as the remaining parts of the UK would also have to renegotiate!
Unless somebody decided it wasn't worth the hassle and we all stayed in....or we all got thrown out 
|
Guest
|
| Bill McLaughlin wrote: | Of course the UK couldn't be the UK without Scotland, it was created as an agreement between Scottish and English parliaments. 1707 Union of parliaments created The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Poor old Wales was included as part of England as it had been conquered.
Northern Ireland only came into the equation last Century
England wouldn't be members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain either
So there would no longer be a United Kingdom and the whole thing would be up for grabs as the remaining parts of the UK would also have to renegotiate!
Unless somebody decided it wasn't worth the hassle and we all stayed in....or we all got thrown out |
No Bill, The Union of the Crowns in 1603, created the united Kingdom
|
Bill McLaughlin
|
Always a source of disagreement this one.
The Union of the crowns was an arrangement between Royal households and as far as I'm aware, there was still 2 separate Kingdoms governed by one King.
The Union of Parliament first used the term 'United Kingdom of Great Britain(Which by usage has become 'the UK') in article 1 of the Act of Union, which also refers to the 2 Kingdoms
"Article 1 (name of the new kingdom)
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said UNITED KINGDOM be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."
The original point still stands though, if Scotland became Independent, I believe the whole of the present UK would have to renegotiate European Terms to reflect the change.
|
Guest
|
I'm just being prgmatic Bill. I Scotland was independent, but still had the Queen, then technically it would be still be a united Kingdom.
|
Merak
|
Look at it this way:
1700s Enland/Scotland united. Result: Great Britain - as per the act "be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
1800s Ireland unites with Great Britain: Result: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
It is at that point the UK as we know it comes into existence.
1900s R.O.I secedes. Result: United Kindom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland continue to exist.
So really, under the reasoning that the UK would cease to exist if scotland goes its own way, it should've ceased to exist when R.O.I went its own way, but it never. The remainder carried on.
But yes, it stands to reason that the remaining UK will need to renegotiate some things because obviously its contribution to the EU will be reduced.
|
rickyross3359
|
I would kinda like the SNP to have a wee rethink about the EU maybe it should be part of any referendum?
|
Bill McLaughlin
|
| Merak wrote: | Look at it this way:
1700s Enland/Scotland united. Result: Great Britain - as per the act "be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
1800s Ireland unites with Great Britain: Result: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
It is at that point the UK as we know it comes into existence.
1900s R.O.I secedes. Result: United Kindom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland continue to exist.
So really, under the reasoning that the UK would cease to exist if scotland goes its own way, it should've ceased to exist when R.O.I went its own way, but it never. The remainder carried on.
But yes, it stands to reason that the remaining UK will need to renegotiate some things because obviously its contribution to the EU will be reduced. |
Glad we agree even if when we don't
The UK of GB was formed by Scotland and England, Ireland was dragged in much later in an attempt to 'keep the natives down' and was seen as an addition to the UK.
When Ireland gained their Independence the negotiations were about the 6 counties and how it would be handled. It was decided that the Uk would simply be renamed and the addition would be smaller.
Their was no reason for the Original UK to cease as it was between Scotland and England.
If only N.I Wales and England were left they would have to come up with a new name/description as neither of the smaller are 'kingdoms'
Wales was always a Principality whilst N.I was a political device and temporary answer to a difficult problem.
We need a new name for this new Union without Scotland, any takers
|
Guest
|
| Bill McLaughlin wrote: | | Merak wrote: | Look at it this way:
1700s Enland/Scotland united. Result: Great Britain - as per the act "be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
1800s Ireland unites with Great Britain: Result: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
It is at that point the UK as we know it comes into existence.
1900s R.O.I secedes. Result: United Kindom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland continue to exist.
So really, under the reasoning that the UK would cease to exist if scotland goes its own way, it should've ceased to exist when R.O.I went its own way, but it never. The remainder carried on.
But yes, it stands to reason that the remaining UK will need to renegotiate some things because obviously its contribution to the EU will be reduced. |
Glad we agree even if when we don't
The UK of GB was formed by Scotland and England, Ireland was dragged in much later in an attempt to 'keep the natives down' and was seen as an addition to the UK.
When Ireland gained their Independence the negotiations were about the 6 counties and how it would be handled. It was decided that the Uk would simply be renamed and the addition would be smaller.
Their was no reason for the Original UK to cease as it was between Scotland and England.
If only N.I Wales and England were left they would have to come up with a new name/description as neither of the smaller are 'kingdoms'
Wales was always a Principality whilst N.I was a political device and temporary answer to a difficult problem.
We need a new name for this new Union without Scotland, any takers |
Losers??
|
Bill McLaughlin
|
Like what they called a shipwreck with 200 lawyers on board........
That's a good start
|
AllanP
|
| Merak wrote: | Look at it this way:
1700s Enland/Scotland united. Result: Great Britain - as per the act "be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
1800s Ireland unites with Great Britain: Result: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
It is at that point the UK as we know it comes into existence.
1900s R.O.I secedes. Result: United Kindom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland continue to exist.
So really, under the reasoning that the UK would cease to exist if scotland goes its own way, it should've ceased to exist when R.O.I went its own way, but it never. The remainder carried on.
But yes, it stands to reason that the remaining UK will need to renegotiate some things because obviously its contribution to the EU will be reduced. |
If, as you imply that the UK then becomes more fragmented, then surely the collection of countries should be called "Britain" or the "British Isles" and not afterwards under any circumstances be referred to as "Great Britain".
After all, we as a whole nation, were only "great" once.
Well-maybe twice.
|
Guest
|
Aye, but the 'Great' came from Brittany in France. They called it 'Bretagne', and our island to the North, being bigger was called 'Grande Bretagne' which became 'Great Britain'!
|
Bigman
|
As long as the money in my pooch pays the mortgage, put food in me belly and keeps the wolf from the door i couldn't give a rats arse what it is.
Ponds, Euro, Dollar whatever.............
Makes no difference to me!
|
Guest
|
They had a poll in Notting Hill to see if they wanted the Euro...but 88% said they wanted to keep the Giro!!
|
rickyross3359
|
Too bloody right I for one want to keep the Giro too.
As solid as the Northern rock so it is.
|
AllanP
|
| woodysdad wrote: | | Aye, but the 'Great' came from Brittany in France. They called it 'Bretagne', and our island to the North, being bigger was called 'Grande Bretagne' which became 'Great Britain'! |
So what your are trying to say is that the Frenchie's are correct then, and we are much mistaken.
I thought that "Grande" meant large or big in French, meaning a big or larger Britain.
"Greater" Britain perhaps, but not great in the true sense of the word surely.
|
|
|
