The Student Room Group

Should the Bank of England be renamed the Bank of the Union (or similar)?

Poll

Should the Bank of England be renamed the Bank of the Union?

Why is it still called the Bank of England when it serves the whole of the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Thomas2
Why is it still called the Bank of England when it serves the whole of the UK?


Historically I think its because Scotland ceded power to England in the act if union and the Bank of England already existed.

Today we can't change the name because it would aid the separatists.
Reply 2
Bank of England name is iconic around the world. We can't change it's name and be forced to build up its prestige all over again.
Reply 3
Original post by queensboy
Bank of England name is iconic around the world. We can't change it's name and be forced to build up its prestige all over again.


But it would still be the same bank...
Original post by Thomas2
But it would still be the same bank...


So why do you want to change the name?
Reply 5
You wouldn't change Scotch whiskey's name to Unionish Whisky because it's sold all over the UK, would you?
Reply 6
Original post by TenOfThem
So why do you want to change the name?


Because the name is misleading - it represents the whole of the UK and not just England - and to help dispel the myth that Scotland, Wales and NI are somehow English colonies ...
Reply 7
Original post by mrfletch
You wouldn't change Scotch whiskey's name to Unionish Whisky because it's sold all over the UK, would you?


No but that's hardly the same thing. I'm all for England, Scotland, Wales and NI maintaining their strong and unique identities but UK institutions in which all parties are stakeholders should be appropriately named IMHO.
It doesn't, in principle. In Scotland notes are issued by private banks. These notes are then backed by the BoE. Abolishing private currency issued in Scotland and renaming the BoE the BoB or BotUK would not change much but could be poor symbolism.
Original post by Thomas2
Because the name is misleading - it represents the whole of the UK and not just England - and to help dispel the myth that Scotland, Wales and NI are somehow English colonies ...


it doesn't "represent" anyone

The name misleads no-one

If the purpose and actions of the bank would remain unchanged why do you feel a change of name would be worth the cost and effort
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 10
Original post by mrfletch
You wouldn't change Scotch whiskey's name to Unionish Whisky because it's sold all over the UK, would you?

Whiskey is an Irish or American drink.

Scotland produces whisky.
Reply 11
Original post by TenOfThem
it doesn't "represent" anyone

The name misleads no-one

If the purpose and actions of the bank would remain unchanged why do you feel a change of name would be worth the cost and effort


Would it really cost that much? Just trying to think of ways to make the UK seem more balanced and less dominated by England.
It would be a hollow gesture and no one would be convinced.
Reply 13
Original post by RayApparently
It would be a hollow gesture and no one would be convinced.


If that would be the only change maybe so, but if it were to form part of a wider package of changes/reforms I don't see why it should be perceived as hollow.
Original post by Thomas2
If that would be the only change maybe so, but if it were to form part of a wider package of changes/reforms I don't see why it should be perceived as hollow.


What kind of reforms, and why are they necessary?
Reply 15
Original post by Observatory
It doesn't, in principle. In Scotland notes are issued by private banks. These notes are then backed by the BoE. Abolishing private currency issued in Scotland and renaming the BoE the BoB or BotUK would not change much but could be poor symbolism.


The BoE would act as 'lender of last resort' to prop up any bank that got into difficulties in any part of the UK so in that respect it does serve the whole of the Union. It also is the bedrock of Sterling which is used by the whole of the UK.

I am not advocating stopping the practice of Scotland, Channel Islands etc. printing their own banknotes.
Reply 16
Original post by RayApparently
What kind of reforms, and why are they necessary?


I suppose I was mainly referring to the whole topical issue of greater devolved powers.

However, if we are better together then why don't we more things together like having a UK football team for example? We might even win a tournament for a change or at least get out of the group stage. Then we could all celebrate something.
Original post by Thomas2
I suppose I was mainly referring to the whole topical issue of greater devolved powers.

However, if we are better together then why don't we more things together like having a UK football team for example? We might even win a tournament for a change or at least get out of the group stage. Then we could all celebrate something.


Haha, that would be nice :biggrin:
Original post by Thomas2
Why is it still called the Bank of England when it serves the whole of the UK?


For a start, it harks back to and records sterling being an English currency (Scotland adopted sterling and dropped its own currency when it entered the union).

We don't call Scotch mist British mist, or the English Channel the British Channel.

You'll be wanting to change the name of the language we use to British next.
Original post by Thomas2
I suppose I was mainly referring to the whole topical issue of greater devolved powers.

However, if we are better together then why don't we more things together like having a UK football team for example? We might even win a tournament for a change or at least get out of the group stage. Then we could all celebrate something.


Devolution or Centralisation - you seem to be arguing for both

Quick Reply

Latest