The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Thomas2

However, if we are better together then why don't we more things together like having a UK football team for example?


Because the world of football granted special powers to the four British associations. They each get one vote on the sport's law making body, IFAB, with the rest of the world, through FIFA also have four votes. If you asked the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish associations to give up their privileges to play in a GB team they would not be happy bunnies.
Reply 21
Original post by Good bloke
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.


We do talk of British English vs American English... In any case the Scots, Welsh and Irish do have their own languages...

I appreciate the BoE pre-dates the Union and maybe it's neither here nor there to the Yes voters in Scotland what its called. I just thought it was an idea worth considering. It would seem TSR disagrees so I think I will concede defeat and go and join Alex Salmond ...
Reply 22
Original post by Good bloke
Because the world of football granted special powers to the four British associations. They each get one vote on the sport's law making body, IFAB, with the rest of the world, through FIFA also have four votes. If you asked the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish associations to give up their privileges to play in a GB team they would not be happy bunnies.


Well you obviously know much more about football than I do. I wasn't suggesting that the four nations should stop having their own teams. Maybe we could compete individually in the European Cup and have a team GB in the World Cup.

Football was just an example. It would be nice if we could find more stuff to do together...
Original post by Thomas2
Well you obviously know much more about football than I do. I wasn't suggesting that the four nations should stop having their own teams. Maybe we could compete individually in the European Cup and have a team GB in the World Cup.

Football was just an example. It would be nice if we could find more stuff to do together...


Such is the state of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football, that only one non-English player, I reckon (Gareth Bale) would get into a full GB team.
Reply 24
Original post by OMGWTFBBQ
How about massive housebuilding in Scotland and transferring population to Scotland?

Because that's the only way to stop UK being English dominated --- to make England's population smaller.

Oh, but you don't want tarmac on your lovely countryside, do you?
Too bad.


Well the U.S. balances population differences amongst its different states in a way that is balanced and fair.
Original post by OMGWTFBBQ
And the name of the lender of last resort in the US reflects this as the Federal Reserve.

So how is that relevant to this discussion?


We could hardly rename the BoE to the British Reserve. That has an altogether different meaning. :biggrin:
Original post by Thomas2
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.


The basic problem is that while you might view it as granting equality to the other home nations, their nationalists are more likely to portray it as a power grab. Whether this is fair or not, they can rhetorically justify claim it is one, so they almost certainly would.
Reply 27
Original post by OMGWTFBBQ
And the name of the lender of last resort in the US reflects this as the Federal Reserve.

So how is that relevant to this discussion?


The fact that it's not called the Bank of Massachusetts or the Bank of New York for example...
Reply 28
Original post by Observatory
The basic problem is that while you might view it as granting equality to the other home nations, their nationalists are more likely to portray it as a power grab. Whether this is fair or not, they can rhetorically justify claim it is one, so they almost certainly would.


No more of a power grab than devolution though?
Reply 29
Original post by Good bloke
Such is the state of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football, that only one non-English player, I reckon (Gareth Bale) would get into a full GB team.


I'm sure he'd make all the difference though :biggrin:
Original post by Thomas2
No more of a power grab than devolution though?


I mean a power grab by Westminster.
Original post by Thomas2
Would it really cost that much? Just trying to think of ways to make the UK seem more balanced and less dominated by England.


But the UK is hugely dominated by England....
Original post by Simes
Whiskey is an Irish or American drink.

Scotland produces whisky.

I'd written whiskey both times, thought it didn't seem right, looked it up and then only corrected the second one by mistake. whoops.
Original post by OMGWTFBBQ
How about massive housebuilding in Scotland and transferring population to Scotland?

Because that's the only way to stop UK being English dominated --- to make England's population smaller.

Oh, but you don't want tarmac on your lovely countryside, do you?
Too bad.


I think Scotland has control of housing already though it would be great if the Scots started breeding in a bid for force political equality with England.
Reply 34
I don't think it should change, for many of the reasons already stated.

If you were going to do that, you'd have to change other banks too - TSB for example.
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?


Well, to be fair, the distillers don't generally try to force us to drink only Scotch and the salmon producers don't attempt to use their fish to control house prices.
Original post by Thomas2
Why is it still called the Bank of England when it serves the whole of the UK?


It's an interesting idea. The British National Bank of Sterling perhaps? Or the UK Central Bank?

One problem with all this kind of thing is the international confusion that still surrounds the names we use for things. Many Americans, for example, interchangeably use words like 'England' and 'Britain' when they mean the UK and 'English' when they mean 'British'. Things like the continued existence of the B of E don't help with sorting these confusions out.
Reply 37
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's an interesting idea. The British National Bank of Sterling perhaps? Or the UK Central Bank?

One problem with all this kind of thing is the international confusion that still surrounds the names we use for things. Many Americans, for example, interchangeably use words like 'England' and 'Britain' when they mean the UK and 'English' when they mean 'British'. Things like the continued existence of the B of E don't help with sorting these confusions out.


I thought the whole of TSR was against the idea. It doesn't seem so silly to me.
Reply 38
Original post by Jaz_A
I don't think it should change, for many of the reasons already stated.

If you were going to do that, you'd have to change other banks too - TSB for example.

TSB is not a central reserve bank though.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's an interesting idea. The British National Bank of Sterling perhaps? Or the UK Central Bank?

Many Americans, for example, interchangeably use words like 'England' and 'Britain' when they mean the UK and 'English' when they mean 'British'.


Are these erroneous Americans, North Americans, South Americans or Central Americans?

Quick Reply

Latest