Jump to content

Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

There is a concept of legal tender in Scotland. When they existed, Bank of England £1 notes were legal tender. The Scottish Parliament says [1]

Under this narrow legal definition Scottish banknotes have never, even in Scotland, except for two very short periods during the two World Wars, been legal tender. Bank of England banknotes are also not legal tender in Scotland under this definition. Only coins from the Royal Mint are legal tender in Scotland and even these are subject to limitations, e.g. £1 worth of 1pcoins is legal tender but £1.01 is not. £1 and £2 coins are legal tender in Scotland to unlimited amounts. --Henrygb 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be split up

This article needs to be split up, as the information here duplicates that outlined in individual articles such as Banknotes of England and Banknotes of Great Britain - (Aidan Work 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

No, it doesn't; those other articles need to be redirected here, as neither has its own banknotes. --Kiand 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aidan Work. It would be better if there were separate articles for the English, Scottish, and Northern Ireland notes. The 'complicated' issue with the Scottish non-legal tender and three bank issuing system gives that issue enough substance to fill a whole article. Osgoodelawyer 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Notes in England

"the Bank of Scotland (generally accepted throughout the UK);
the Royal Bank of Scotland (generally accepted throughout the UK);
the Clydesdale Bank (generally accepted throughout the UK);"

Actually I'm not certain that Scottish notes are widely accepted south of the border. I certainly haven't seen any in circulation in southern England, although if I was passed one and the stores didn't take it I could always change it at a bank. Lee M 04:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It depends how far from the border you go, generally. Here in Cheshire while they're not common they can certainly be found. Arwel 04:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Legally they are accepted throughout the UK although outside the border area & London a lot of shop assistants aren't sure about them (pleanty of times they've had to check with a supervisor before realising that they are ok to accept), but that is just unfamiliarity with the notes as English banks tend to send them back up to Scotland when they get them, so they never get a chance to circulate. AllanHainey 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the matter depends on a three-part distinction: 1) notes that must be accepted (legal tender), 2) notes that legally are acceptable, ie that can either be accepted or rejected and 3) notes which are unacceptable, ie that legally must be rejected (counterfeit, foreign currency in places where only banks may convert them into national currency).
It seems that Scottish notes are certainly not category 1 in England but seem to be category 2: the holder cannot legally require others to accept them as payment although they are certainly free to do so, if they choose. However, my experience in London was that many people tried to treat them as category 3 and said flat out that they could not accept them since they were Scottish pounds which weren't money in England. I discovered that with some persistence, I was often able to get peoples in Boots or other chains to accept them, but sometimes they wouldn't budge. The article as it's now written might be confusing for those who aren't familiar with the exact meaning of "legal tender", as I wasn't until a few minutes ago. Saying the notes "are not legal tender in England", while apparently correct, might mislead readers into thinking that use of them as a medium of payment is illegal, category 3, when it fact it's category 2.
These experiences are from 1984 to 2000 and perhaps don't apply now, but I expect they do. Interlingua talk email 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Scottish notes are category 1, but are through ignorance often considered category 2. At least this is an improvement on being considered category 3, a condition formerly common in my own recollection.
Nuttyskin 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, NO. How many times must it be said? SCOTTISH BANKNOTES ARE NOT LEGAL TENDER ANYWHERE. The only notes which are legal tender in England are those of the Bank of England. "Legal tender" has a very precise meaning which is not what most people think it is – read the article on legal tender which is a good explanation of what it means. In Scotland they are promissory notes, not legal tender; neither are English notes legal tender in Scotland. Acceptability of notes by the public is not the same thing as legal tender. -- Arwel (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move?

This page covers Northern Irish banknotes, and Northern Ireland is not and never has been in Britain. The article should be at United Kingdom banknotes, as it also covers Guernsey and Jersey, which also aren't in Britain. Kiand 14:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, Guernsey and Jersey are British, but are not in the United Kingdom. Man vyi 17:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Its impossible to be in Great Britain but not in the UK, as the UK is defined as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland". Either way, they're both small and relatively insignificant compared to Northern Ireland (1,500,000 people), which is definitively not in Great Britain. Kiand 20:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But it is possible to be British but not in the UK (as are the Isle of Man and Channel Islands). The title of the article is British banknotes rather than Banknotes of Great Britain - there is a difference. How about British and UK banknotes? Man vyi 21:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Argh! No, please don't revisit the old "what is 'British'?" argument, which I can't recall where it was last fought over else I'd refer you there. Just read "British" as being the adjective referring to the sterling area. -- Arwel 16:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So move them to Sterling Banknotes then. British is completely wrong, argument or not. Kiand 22:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, done. Mauls 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Euro

The discussion of the euro seems irrelevant to sterling banknotes - especially after the move to make the article about sterling banknotes. Man vyi 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey

References to the States of Jersey and States of Guernsey altered to "Bailiwick": The Bailiwicks are the crown dependencies, while the States are simply their respective legislatures 72.75.110.8 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Bank pictures

Are the Northern Bank note pictures not backwards? The Purple - old, pre robbery one is shown as the 'new' one and the new, post-robbery one is shown as the 'old' one. I know blue = new because I've got a January 2005 re-issue 20 here, and its blue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.77.181.1 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Suggestions for additional fewer redirects

I just struggled to find this article, and am suggesting that some redirects be added to assist others: £n pound note for n in {1, 5, 10, 20, 50}, £ sign optional, and n as word too. That would come to fifteen new redirects to the page. Shall I go ahead and add them? Does Wikipedia have a policy on the acceptable number of redirects to an article? - Chris Wood 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that it doesn't uniquely specify which e.g. £5 pound note the article would refer to - English, Scottish, Northern Irish, Manx, Jersey, Guernsey, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc, let alone non-Sterling notes like Irish, Maltese, Cypriot, Egyptian, Lebanese pounds. There's no limit on the number of redirects to an article, but they should be appropriate. Personally I still rely on the old faithful "British banknotes" to get here. -- Arwel (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sold! Thanks for the info. Pound (currency) was illuminating too... - Chris Wood 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

... I went on to search for articles beginning with '£', and here they are:

By the logic above, all of these should be changed? (And at least more specific?) - Chris Wood 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Please take a look at User:Chochopk/Note, where I summarize the clean up that I did for articles/disambigs related to $. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I like what you've done at User:Chochopk/Note and am happy to do something similar for £. But should we create a general support page where tables like these can go for every currency symbol? The redirects could then be standardised in form. Is there a WikiProject for money/currency that this would fit in? -- Chris Wood 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics and I see you're involved in it. Shall we create a page there and add the tables? Is that how it works? -- Chris Wood 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for driving this. I've been busy in real life so please take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. I guess the most appropriate action is to create a project subpage (for both $ and £, and possibly more in the future). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will get on it - been delayed by RL myself! -- Chris Wood 10:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Issuing banks list

I accept that it's a bit inefficient to say "These are recognised currency wherever, and generally accepted throughout the UK." after every other bank, but I feel that the primary purpose of that list is to show all the banks that can issue notes, and clumping them together in sentences defeats this. I've made a stepped list to try and alleviate this. --Scott Wilson 20:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your changes. By the way, are NI notes defined as legal tender in northern ireland or a re they just "recognised currency" like in Scotland? Either way this should be included here. Grinner 09:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland banknotes circulate alongside bank of england notes here in Northern Ireland and are worth the same as BOE notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scales67 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish bank notes in england. English notes in Scotland etc

Accoding to the 'legal tender' page. Notes of any denomination are not actually 'legal tender' in the UK - nor do they need to be 'legal tender' for the purposes which they are employed. Only £1 and £2 coins are legal tender for any transaction in England. 82.153.170.21 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)LFG

I wish people would read the entire article before grabbing the wrong end of the stick. £1 and £2 coins are legal tender throughout the UK, while Bank of England banknotes are legal tender in England and Wales. -- Arwel (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, this is the deal. All Scottish notes EXCEPT the £1 note are all legal tender of the UK. There is an issue of using them in england!. Although its perfectly legal and allowed, alot of people down england havent actually seen them before and therefore are not sure about what they are!. They may be reluctant to take them on this basis. The Royal Bank of Scotland notes however are a kind of different story. Being the 4th biggest bank in the world, the RBS notes will be well recognised down in england and will be OK. This is the general rule. English notes will all be accepted in scotland too. The scotish banks were given permission by the monarchy to print money to commemorate great scots. ie; robert burns and such like. This is the reason they exist. Identity!. For the record though all notes from all UK countries, EXCEPT the scottish £1 note, are legal tender throughout the UK.

Thanks

Get yourself to Scotland! You'll love it! The Scotsman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.216.131 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-05 13:46:38.

No, this is functionally wrong. I think you may need to research what legal tender actually means - for a start, there is only limited "legal tender of the UK", and it doesn't cover banknotes! You may be a Scot, but I'm a Scot reading Stair...
The Scottish banknotes don't exist because they're Scottish; they exist because three Scottish banks have not yet ceased printing banknotes under the relevant 1840s? legislation, whereas all English banks have (the last was in ~1925-30). Shimgray 13:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Er no. The unsigned advice above is absolutely wrong. NO current notes are legal tender in Scotland - not Scottish, not English, and neither are Scottish or Northern Irish notes anywhere. You need to read the article on legal tender to find out exactly what that means - it does not mean that people will not accept them (and Scottish law is different from English anyway). The acceptability of unusual notes is entirely dependent on the recipient - I was in the WH Smiths at Manchester Piccadilly station a few weeks ago when the cashier skipped a note when he was getting me a fiver change because it was a Bank of Ireland one - perfectly acceptable but few people will take it in England because they're not familiar with it - I'll take any Scottish note offered, but not NI notes because they're a pain to spend. The RBS is a big bank in England but it does not issue its banknotes from its English branches. -- Arwel 13:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


This cannot be right, can we please get firm proof on this. How can It be that no notes are legal in Scotland?? Tosh. Why are people printing them then? How can you have illegal currency that everyone accepts including the banks. My understanding from my bank manager is that anything which reads STERLING is accepted in England/Wales. Cannot comment on Scotland/Ireland.

Again you need to READ the legal tender article. The currency isn't illegal, it just isn't legal tender. BTW, cheques are not legal tender either in general. Are you saying that banks shouldn't accept cheques because they're not legal tender? Large amounts of small legal tender notes or coins isn't legal tender in a number of countries. For example, here in NZ, 50c coins are legal tender for up to $5.00. However all banks and many stores etc will have no problem accepting 50c coins for values of $10.00 or more. Are you saying the banks and shops shouldn't do so? Again you really need to get an read the legal tender article as numerous people have been suggesting before making a fool of yourself some more. Nil Einne 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is correct to say that Scottish & NI notes are not legal tender. "Not legal tender" doesn't mean not acceptable or "illegal", nor does it make them any less valid as money. Scottish & NI notes have the same legal standing as a cheque or debit card - acceptance is really down to an agreement between the parties involved. Maestro is, after all, not legal tender, but in widespread use.
There was once a Sheriff Court ruling against a Scottish local council who refused to take a Poll Tax payment in Scottish notes on the ground that it wasn't legal tender. The court found against them because Scottish notes are used widely enough to be accepted by the public as "money". Wish I could find a report of the ruling, it was quite interesting, not to say amusing.
The "firm proof" requested above can be found on the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers website.

--Cnbrb 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New Navbox

I've developed a new navbox - Template:Banknotes of the pound sterling. It struck me there was a need for something to tie the various individual articles together, as it's a confusing subject. For new related articles, please be sure to add this template.

Hope you like it. :-) --Cnbrb 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, I've made use of the relevant bits of the Template:Infobox currency to give this article a nice summary box at the start, with a visual summary of the range of notes discussed in the article and of the main territories covered (minus Falkland, Gib and St Helena - bit hard to fit them all in!) --Cnbrb 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Security Features

Would not a section on the notes' security features not be useful? The banks' websites provide details of some of the security features (strangely I have seen little written about the wide vertical bands that run across the thread/metal strip in all of the Bank of England notes I have ever seen). Information on the dot patterns (to prevent copying) can be found elsewhere. Also, I seem to remember that one revision of the English 50 GBP note had ink that would leave a mark on a finger or piece of paper rubbed across it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.175 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frequently used banknotes

I noticed that £1 notes are down as being frequently used. I wouldn't have said that this was true in Scotland any more. Having worked in retail I can say that I have had many times more customers spending £100 notes than £1 notes. Though you do see them sometimes. Anyway I was going to "be bold" but since the infobox has £1(Channel Islands, Scot. only) and I have no idea about the frequency of use of pound notes in the Channel Islands. I didn't know which would be better, having £1(Channel Islands, Scot. only) in freq. used (which I would say was wrong) or splitting into £1(Channel Islands) in freq. and £1(Scot) in unfreq. Though I would agree with anybody who said this was messy. Scroggie (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be best is to find a reliable source what states that £1 notes are infrequently used. Thanks/wangi (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank stopped printing them about 15 years ago. Royal Bank continues to do so but usually only commemorative ones (Queen Mum, Euro Summit etc), so there are far fewer in circulations. Try Scotbanks for some circulation figures. Cnbrb (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Bank Of England10.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is now fixed using {{Non-free image data}} combined with {{Non-free image rationale}}, as recommended in situations where an image is used in multiple articles.Cnbrb (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal Bank of Scotland Alexander Graham Bell £1 Note

I have a picture of a Royal Bank of Scotland Alexander Graham bell £1 Note and was wondering whether I should upload it and include it in this article. If anyone has an opinion on this then could they write back.

If it should be uploaded, could someone tell me what to write in the description, and what licenses to put it under.

DIPPY (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating! I hope you will be able to use it. There's a chance it may get deleted by the copyright police - if this does happen, it's just Wikipedia being super-cautious, and not your fault. However, you can reduce the chance of this happening by filing in the rights info carefully.
  1. Go to Upload file.
  2. Start by clicking on "A picture of a postage stamp, or of currency".
  3. In the box you will see a bit of code that starts "Non-free use rationale" - you need to fill in the bits of this for each article you put the image in, as this justifies its use for each article. There is guidance on how to best fill this in on this page, or check out some of the other currency images for inspiration (e.g. the George Best Fiver).
  4. Finally, select "Image of currency that may be copyrighted" from the drop-down menu.
It will help if you photoshop the word "SPECIMEN" over the image, just to show that you are trying to minimise the risk of it being used by counterfeiters. Also, only upload a low-res image (say 300px wide) for the same reason. Good luck with it! Cnbrb (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The Bank of England has many duties. Printing banknote is just one of them. Things about banknotes on Bank of England should be reduced to a summary, while the bulk of the information should be moved here. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. trivia about banknotes etc should be moved to a bubpage. The bank of England has many other important roles which this trivia distracts from. Chendy 10:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Disagree. The bulk of the information on the Bank page is historical; including it here would seriously unbalance the article with regard to the amount of information shown with regard to the other note-issuing banks, where we concentrate on the current situation. -- Arwel (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where this material should go, but I strongly agree it should leave the Bank of England article. As Arwel Parry points out, Banknotes of pound sterling article discusses current banknotes. Perhaps a 'History of Bank of England notes' would be in order. - Crosbiesmith 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree. The decision that the Bank's article should contain historical information and the banknote article should contain current information seems a little arbitrary to me. Bank and banknotes are two different things. Either article can contain historical information. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree or disagree on the where the material should go to. I strongly agree that it should be moved from Bank of England. I've split it out as Bank of England note issues for the present. I reintroduced the merge proposal tag on this new page. - Crosbiesmith 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
British banknotes is a complex topic. An anonymous editor left a message on this issue. We have no standing guide line for currencies that can be issued by multiple banks. Content of GBP banknote will eventually get large and require split. IMHO, by bank is a natural split. Perhaps it's time to discuss a naming convention that also applies to Hong Kong and Macau? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a merger. This page is a great overview of the subject, but there is much detail to be explored which, if all presented this single article, would make it rather long and unwieldy. The articles on Bank of England note issues and Banknotes of Northern Ireland are a good way of splitting off with more depth. There is scope for a separate page on Scottish notes too, as it is a fascinating and rich history. I vote for following this model and splitting info off by country (rather than bank) is a sensible way to start. If these get too long-winded, further splitting by bank would be a natural progression. What's the consensus?--Cnbrb 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor has added a new merge notice (merging Bank of England note issues into this one). I disagree with his/her comment that a merger is a "no-brainer" simply on grounds of length and the amount of detail this will add to this article. It's better to allow separate articles on issues by individual banks to allow specialist writing on historical detail, and keep this article as an overview of the topic. We have potentially 14 separate note issuers which someone may want to write about in detail - surely not all in this article! Cnbrb (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the new merge notice. My comments and reasons from December 2006 still stand. -- Arwel (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a majority against this. After silence on the issue for 4 months I'm going to chuck out the merge notice as so few seem in favour.Cnbrb (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New £20 Note

Both the new and old £20 notes are considered to be in use until the old one is officially withdrawn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.241.204 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the new £20 and the Euro notes? Warming us up?

right|5000px|thumb| left|250px|thumb|

Logoistic 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't notice any striking similarity. The following 3 images are what I would call similarity
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but as far as I know, they arn't trying to homogenise the currencies of Brazil, Ecuador, and China. Logoistic 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
File:20e ver.png
If they are not similar, which is the case in my book, then the issue of homogenization doesn't exist. If you want to think that they are similar, that's fine. But here is my logic.
€20 Series F £20 Series E £20 rev
Portrait None Dual Dual
Watermark position Left Left Center
Bank title font Arial Like Series E Something else
Bank title on back No Yes Yes
Denomination font Arial Like Series E Cursive
Colour Blue Blue Violet
Has currency symbol No Yes Yes
"20"'s position on front 3 corners 3 different corners Upper corners
Hologram Vertical band Vertical bank Round
Serial number 2 horizontal Vertical and horizontal Vertical and horizontal
Serial placement Back Back Front
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, surely the above is actually showing that the new £20 is more similar to the €20 than the old £20, hence supporting my argument... Logoistic 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Partially, maybe. This is getting WP:OR. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChoChoPK. It seems like a concious decision has been made to smooth the inevitable adoption of the euro. Chendy 10:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious lack of similarity between these notes, does anyone know if a name is being attached to the Series F notes, following on from Portrait, Pictorial and Historical? I can't find anything on the BoE website.
Dove1950 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they share certain small characteristics, everyone I know doesn't like them because they look like "euro money" (which caused a colleague of mine quite some embarrassment when they first came out and he - unaware of the new notes - refused to accept them from a customer)

I think it's more likely that the BoE is simply using some of the new security features that first appeared on Euros and that's why certain aspects of the new £20 note design might seem vaguely more Euro-esque than the old one. Esquimo 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)



Is the start date for series E and F notes supposod to be the same? 13 March 2007:

"As of 13 March 2007 the Bank of England banknotes in circulation, known as Series E, do not exceed £50. The notes are as follows:"

IJMacD (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, 13 March 2007 was the date of introduction of the first Series F note, the £20. The Series E notes were introduced at various times from June 1990 onwards, as the table in the article says. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

England and Wales 100 pound note

Why no 100 pound note in England and Wales? Will there ever be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.123.144 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doubt there's any drive to get one. Most places won't even take £50s. Esquimo (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I read an article on the (not on-line) Coin News in which the current Chief Cashier of the Bank of England says there is no demand for a £100, not least because there is already a problem with crime in relation to the £50. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing act of Parliament

The 1826 act listed on the main article only makes sense when considered with respect to another restriction act of 1797 which was introduced during the Napoleonic wars. I haven't got the full details to hand, but that 1797 act should be listed too as it is an integral part of the chronology. David Tombe (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Overseas territories

I've made a bit more of the section on Overseas territories to make it a bit clearer, although I hesitate to add anything to an already long article. Hopefully it's a bit clearer which territories are covered, with links out to the main articles for all the juicy details. Cnbrb (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit [2] is badly in need of some sources. It appears to me to be WP:OR. I'll give the author a few days to provide some, but if none are forthcoming it will have to be removed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Is there any reason there's picture upon picture of Scottish and Irish notes, but not one of the actual proper British / English / English and Welsh notes, whatever you want to call them.

And Northern Ireland is indeed in Britain. Britain is the British Isles. Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain, which is the big island (where England, Wales and Scotland are). Proto 13:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Bank of England objected to our including images of their notes. -- Arwel 14:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I applied to the BoE for permission to display images of their banknotes (internet/educational, as per conditions 3,4,6) and got a reply today granting consent for 12 months. I will add photos next week. --Wangi 11:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Images of £10 and £20 Bank of England notes now added. Wangi 09:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the images have "specimen" on them? Also the above user says they got consent to use the images for 12 months in 2005. Is it still ok for them to be here?Smartse (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Some editors and I are having trouble getting our heads around the exact nature of the Gibraltar Pound vs the British Pound - can anyone help at Talk:Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no definable difference from what I can see. Gibraltar is in the UK bank clearing system, and its banks have UK sorting codes. This means that transfers can be made to banks in Gibraltar in exactly the same way as they can be made to other parts of England. I would put the Gibraltar pound in the exact same category as the Isle of Man Pound and the Channel Islands pounds. I would say that they are all Sterling. The notes and coins are of course only legal tender in their respective jurisdictions. But nobody in England would refuse Gibraltar coins, because they are the same size, weight, shape, and value, and they have the Queen's head on them. There may however be a problem with the banks in the UK as regards Gibraltar paper money. Whereas the banks have traditionally exchanged Scottish, Manx, Northern Irish, and Channel Islands banknotes freely, that has not always been so as regards Gibraltar notes. I don't know what the situation is today but I suspect that it hasn't changed since the 1980's. In the 1980's, the UK banks took in Gibraltar pounds on a collection basis and gave an appalling discount.
The situation with the Falkland Islands and St. Helena is subtley different because money transfers to those destinations are done by telegraphic transfer with a fee and a discount, as like foreign payments. Likewise, as with Gibraltar, the banks in the UK charge a horrendous premium to change them. Hence, Falkland pounds and St. Helena pounds just fall outside the definition of being sterling. But in older sources, the term sterling was more widely used to cover the currencies of any territory such as Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa which used a currency which was sterling to all intents and purposes.
The authorities in Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man, St. Helena, and the Falkland Islands are all restricted by their own legislation to the extent that these currency notes are only issued on the basis of full cover with Bank of England notes or UK sterling coinage. This means that these authorities are not full monetary authorities. They cannot influence the money supply in a way that would create a disparity in value between their currencies and the pound sterling. David Tombe (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you have references for this, or is it your own speculation? I have seen references that substantiate your last paragraph, so I do not dispute that. But the preceeding paragraphs seem to me to be original research, particularly your choice of definition of what is or is not sterling. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a very specialized question that you asked. I have an accumulation of letters from the treasuries of some of these territories, and from some banks going back to the 1980's, because I once asked the same question and related questions. The replies usually involved references to local legislation. I hope it has helped you to get the picture. It all comes down to being able to trace the relevant acts by the relevant legislators. That means having to know the relevant dates. Ultimately, I don't believe that there is any official cut and dried answer to your question. David Tombe (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and I thank you for your reply, but the policies at WP:V and WP:OR are very strict ones. I'm sure you can understand that if another editor challenges your edits (as I'm doing now, in fact), it's not enough for you to say that you have a private collection of letters which say it is so. How can I personally verify your interpretation of them, or indeed, that they exist? I agree that this is a tricky topic, but we need to stick to what is verifiable here. If it's not verifiable, it should not be in the encyclo. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, how would you like to write it up in the main article? The official position is that the Falkland pound and the St. Helena pound are not sterling, but are on par with sterling. The Isle of Man, and Channel Islands are sterling. There used to be, and maybe still is a world value of the pound list, every week in the Financial Times newspaper. That lists Gibraltar, Falklands, and St. Helena as distinct currencies at par with sterling. There is never any mention of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands on those lists. Any UK banker knows that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have always been fully integrated into the UK banking system in every respect. That was not always so with Gibraltar, but I discovered in the early 1990's that Gibraltar banks now have UK sorting codes and that direct credit transfers can be made. There is also the fact that Gibraltar banknotes now state the word 'sterling' on them. This is not the kind of procedural information that is likely to be read in a textbook. If you don't feel comfortable with any particular sentences, then I have no objection if you remove them. David Tombe (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's and interesting web link which might help to answer your query. It's a list of international codes for currencies.[3]. Notice that even Gibraltar has its own code and is officially recognized as a separate currency from sterling, even though in practice there is no difference. There are no codes for Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man because they are unequivocally sterling. But then, even the Gibraltar banknotes say 'sterling' on them. I don't think you will ever get a clear cut answer to this in a textbook. David Tombe (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant point of interest is the fact that writing the word 'sterling' on the Gibraltar banknotes is only a relatively new thing that came about with the latest re-design. In the 1980's they were clearly writing 'Fifty Pounds Gibraltar'. So somebody somewhere has been having a re-think. There probably never was an official answer, and where the note issuing authorities now consider it to be sterling, the international code people don't. Things might have changed with computerization. Modern technology has brought Gibraltar as physically close to England as the Isle of Man, and the banks now have UK sort codes. Hence the new perception that Gibraltar money is sterling. That new perception doesn't obviously as yet extent to the South Atlantic colonies of St. Helena and the Falkland Islands. David Tombe (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware of the wording change. Whilst you're of course free to speculate here on the motive behind it, unless you have references, we should not be adding those speculations to the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no definitive answer. With the evolution of technology in transport and communications, as well as the evolution in the global financial system, time has changed the perceptions regarding this issue. I think that the turning point came when the UK came off the gold standard in 1931. Australia and New Zealand then had to question the meaning of the term sterling for the first time. Prior to 1914, sterling was the gold sovereign, and so Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all used sterling unequivocally. Nobody asked such technical questions as 'what does sterling mean?'. But by the 1970's, we were into a new fiduciary era. We were into an era of ISO codes. The Falkland Islands and St. Helena may well have used currencies that were pegged to sterling at one-to-one. But these territories were far away from the UK, and they were outside the UK's exchange control perimeter. Payments to these destinations involved obtaining permission, and commissions for the telegraphic transfers. Somebody somewhere deemed these currencies not to be sterling. Gibraltar was in a similar situation, but it was closer to the UK, and it was within the UK's exchange control perimeter, except for a short period from 22nd June 1972 until 1st January 1973. Nowadays, Gibraltar is to all intents and purposes integrated into the UK's bank clearing system, and the bank notes now explicitly state 'sterling' to reflect this state of affairs. You can have two currencies that are different. Eg. The Franc and the Pound. You can have two currencies which are the same. Eg. A Bank of Scotland note and a Bank of England note. But you can also have two currencies which are the rudimentary beginnings of being different. Eg. The Falkland Islands pound and the pound sterling. David Tombe (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so sure that "nobody in England would refuse Gibraltar coins". I would and have done. Only if I want to be a complete git. But I do it! Esquimo 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquimo (talk • contribs)

Clydesdale Bank notes in machines?

Are there Reliable sources for this?

Clydesdale bank notes are often rejected by many machines and automated systems, due to their uncommon printings

Without a citation, it seems like FUD, and should be removed soon. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any other info, I did a Google search, and turned up nothing, except that the Scottish banks have some sort of banknote clearing centre with machines that verify notes and return them to their issuing banks. So, the claim has no credibility with me. It goes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an older issue, but interestingly the newer Clydesdale Bank notes do not get accepted in machines commonly. This is simply because the machines haven't yet been updated to recognise them. 94.171.20.201 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that for everyday transactions in shops and the like, there is no debt to be settled. However, citing the case well known case of the pharmaceutical society of great britain vs boots chemists, a contract exists when the items are rung up on the till. Therefore, a debt exists in the brief seconds before, usualy, payment is made. However, the goods are the property of the customer before the payment is made and therefore, a debt exists which of course needs to be settled. Perhaps someone with some sort of legal expertise can comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is no legal opinion since I know nothing of the law. However, common sense would suggest that items rung up in the till (we call it a cashregister in the US) might technically be the property of the buyer, but subject to being taken back by the store (instant "repossession") if the customer is found to be wanting of funds. Perhaps jewelers are very careful not to ring up those items until the credit card has successfully "gone through"? What happens if you ask to "ring up" a ring or watch you're wearing? Can you say "Ah ha!" if you can't pay for it, and walk out with it anyway, claiming you're not shoplifting because you merely owe a debt which you can't pay? Probably not. The case with drugs is that they are in unopened pill bottles in a bag while being run up, and as such are still capable of being taken back "unopened" just as would happened if the filled and labeled bottles had never been picked up by the customer. The same goes for most items even in a grocery store, which are as returnable at the checkout counter as they are when picked off the shelf (butcher's goods might be an exception). The classic example of the non-returnable item would be the already-eaten meal, which is why this example is generally used. It's not like a tin can of soup you find you can't pay for! I would think that most things (including drugs) would be more like the can of soup. SBHarris 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

English notes the most advanced

The following quote appears on the main page:

"The English notes have the most advanced security features[citation needed]; security features are not standardized across Britain."

As a Scotsman who regularly deals with both Scottish and English notes, I would disagree with this statement. Scottish notes in general are actually more advanced than English notes. As an example, the notes have made use of optically variable ink since 1995 (a feature not yet seen on English notes at all), UV ink since 1987 (whereas the English £50 note still has no UV ink at time of writing), the security strip on most Scottish notes has engravings on it, which English notes do not have at all... I could go on.

Because of the complex arrangement up here, a sweeping statement really cannot be made. RBS notes are amongst the oldest in circulation (and have relatively few security features), but Clydesdale's new series are amongst the newest and most hi-tech. So I've removed this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.20.201 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and the Euro?

If it's up to each bank to print its own money - is there any law which would forbid the banks of scotland converting to the Euro, even if the rest of the UK does not? Seabhcán 11:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless there was a law which specifically forbade it, no, though I don't know if one exists that would have to be co-opted when the Euro is taken up, nor would I put it past the U.K. government to deliberately pass one when the Euro is accepted. --Scott Wilson 11:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if the Scottish banks were to do so coinage would remain in sterling, making a change of banknotes rather unlikely. Grinner 13:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Am I right that all British coins, including the ones with a scottish design, are made by the Royal Mint? Seabhcán 13:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The Welsh, Scottish and NI "versions" of the pound coin all circulate completly UK-wide (I don't even think the mint bother to introduce to the appropriate country first). All other coins are the same UK-wide. Grinner 13:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Scottish banks couldn't ever issue Euros without the UK (or at least an independant Scottish government) converting their currency to the Euro, simply because the European Central Bank doesn't let non-national banks (or issuing authorities) issue Euros & certainly wouldn't do so if the government hadn't joined the Euro. I suspect that even if the UK (or Scotland) joined the Euro the ECB wouldn't let them all issue individually designed Euros as it would go against their current policies AllanHainey 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The law in question is the Bankers (Scotland) Act 1845. It restricts the powers of the Scottish banks as regards issuing banknotes. Above a certain relatively small fiduciary issue, these notes must be backed by Bank of England notes or UK coinage. The Bank of England is the sole monetary authority for the UK, and sterling is the official currency for all of the UK. David Tombe (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the above post, the Banking Act 2009 changes and smooths out the rules: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/scottish_northernireland.htm --Kurtle (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Titan and Giant

I saw an episode of QI that mentioned a Titan and Giant banknote (The Titan for £100 million - not for your wallet alas!). QI is often wrong, but does anyone know any details of this? Worth a mention? Chwyatt (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Video clip of QI talking about titan /giant notes http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=juOUpc4Hebk 82.13.243.39 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As of 09/10 There are £1,000,000 AND 100,000,000, known as Giants & Titans respectively: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/scottish_northernireland.htm --Kurtle (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Peculiarity — £ sign on notes

It strikes me as odd that the pound sterling notes/bills are the only notes/bills to feature a currency sign. Neither the US, Canadian nor the Australian notes/bills have $ signs on them, and the euro notes/bills only have a € sign in their watermarks. The coins do not feature it at all. Notes/bills for the Japanese yen lack the ¥ sign. I'm not sure why this is, but surely there's a reason why only the sterling notes feature a currency sign?

Is this a peculiarity worth noting? SergioGeorgini (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's worth fixing. Likely the others didn't have the symbols because somebody couldnt' find them. WP:SOFIXIT SBHarris 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think SergioGeorgini is talking about a peculiarity of the currency itself, not the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I was talking about the fact that Sterling banknotes identify themselves as "£20" instead of the "20" you find on banknotes of virtually all other currencies. Just strikes me as singular. SergioGeorgini (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's because all other money is more suited to a Monopoly Board. --Kurtle (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Manx pounds.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manx pounds.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Manx pounds backside.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manx pounds backside.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NorthernBankNI20.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NorthernBankNI20.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Relationship between the banks

It would be nice for us foreigners to have further discussion on the page about what the relationship between all the banks are, and why there are many which can issue currency. Where I'm from (USA), only the lead government bank can issue currency. Anonymous, 22 Mar 2004

Actually, that's not true per se - all of the Federal Reserve Banks print and issue the notes (A-L, IIRC), but there is much more difference between the British issuing banks' notes. I assume the reason is the bloody Celts being difficult oppressed peoples, as ever (;-)). Not my specialised field, however.
James F. (talk) 16:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually there's a fair bit of the history involved on the individual issuing banks' linked pages, especially about Sir Walter Scott retaining the right of Scottish banks to issue their own notes. Arwel 20:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've added info to this (see new History section) - note issuing isn't actually tied in with national identity. Not many people realise that prior to 1844, many English provincial banks could issue their own notes. Check out this British Provincial Banknotes website - there are banknotes from Birmingham, Yorkshire, Lancashire etc. The Bank Charter Act 1844 put a stop to all that, but it's only because it didn't apply to Scotland, Wales or Ireland that these countries continued to have multiple note-issuing commercial banks. Scottish notes don't necessarily suggest independence - unless the peoples of Clydesdale plan to establish their own republic!--Cnbrb 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the banking system in the U.K. or with banknotes issued by retail banks. The basic question is this: is a Pound Sterling issued by the Bank of Scotland equal to a Pound Sterling issued by the Bank of England? Do the retail banks that have the power to issue bank notes in the U.K. have the power to generate money through unlimited printing? It would seem to me that if one of these retail banks wanted to acquire large amounts of money they could simply issue a vast amount of bank notes and then place the money in their vaults. Then they could simply transfer all of that money gradually to the rest of the U.K. by exchanging them with notes from other banks. There are only two methods I can think of to keep this from happening. 1. A Bank of Scotland banknote is not worth the same as a Bank of England banknote. or 2. There must be banking regulations that prohibit the generation of fiat money by the retail banks except to specific amounts and by specific methods set up by a system of banking administration. Explaining how that happens might make someone more familiar with it if they are from a place that generally does not seem to have banknotes commonly issued by retail or private banks in modern times. 67.206.184.6 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read a bit more about banknotes in the 1800s in the United States and I have become convinced that they are fundamentally different from banknotes in the UK in modern times. This is because banknotes in the 1800s were routinely traded at a loss in relation to gold or silver coin if banks were considered to be untrustworthy, and banks that printed bank notes were allowed to fail, which meant that the bank notes of a bank that went bankrupt could become worthless. Thus a banknote from a private bank in such times was something between a form of currency and a widely traded stock or bond, with no deed of ownership and no transaction cost for transfer. Reasonably, in the present U.S. and Europe the money supply is controlled by a single government or international sponsored bank, but in the U.K. it is controlled by banking regulators. If something equivalent were done in the U.S., it would mean that the FDIC controlled the money supply instead of the FED.67.206.183.195 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Million £ note

Are pictures of the £1,000,000 note availible? (Alphaboi867 07:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

  • You mean there actually are actual, physical English banknotes that are worth £1 million to £100 million? What if someone would just casually slip one into his wallet? Or worse, what if it were accidentally torn to pieces or burnt or something? — JIP | Talk 13:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The £1m notes were only used for interbank transactions and were never in general circulation. I don't think they're used anymore. I'm not sure about pictures, though - a few faked up ones have been made though, jguk 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We could do with a English £50 before a £1million note--Synergyplease 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There already is an English £50 note. You don't see them often though, as people rarely spend that much in cash. Tourists often have them when they come over, after exchanging their home currency for them. -Anon
£50 is actually a very small amount compared with the largest notes found in some other currencies - e.g. 500 euro = £340, and 1000 Swiss francs = £430. The reason we never see them is that cash machines do not dispense them. Normally the only way to get a £50 note is from a bank cashier (unless you pay with a Scottish or Northern Irish £100 note in a shop, and get a £50 note in your change - but then the £100 note would need to come from a bank cashier). Tourists are generally the only people who get their money from a bank cashier, unless you're paying a four-figure cash deposit to secure a lease on a house, etc. Mtford 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus alot of retailers don't accept £50 notes due to their use with money launderer's and fake notes. Gryphon5 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you have a £1m note? Why would a bank simply not transfer or write a cashiers cheque for the sum? I think this is pure speculation since no one has proof of this and there is ZERO information on this subect. What if some rich old man who owns a nuclear powerplan run off with this trillion dollar bill to and island and... oh wait... that was the simpsons. Damn, oh well off to spend my £1m note anyone have change?

And how do you suppose that the "transfer" or "cashiers cheque" is going to be settled? At the end of the day the money has got to move from one bank's ownership to another's, to make it easier they will be cancelled against each other (ie if at the end of the day Bank A needs to send £100 to Bank B, and B £101 to A, then the only transaction required is £1 from B to A) but in aggregate these are enormous sums of money, and so the idea of using a £1m note is quite plausable. Ian3055 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that there are £1.000.000-notes, but their design is a secret and that they are kept as reserves against Scottish Banknotes, since Scottish note issuers are obliged by law to keep neraly all reserves backing up their issuance of notes in cash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.99.173 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is correct have a read of the BoE website and you'll see for yourself. As they probably never leave bank vaults I doubt anyone is going to upload an images however.Smartse (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3079606/Million-pound-banknote-on-sale-for-40000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.90 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen £1000,000 pound notes in the bank of England museum on Thread Needle street. So yes they did exist. Not sure if they still use them though.

As of 09/10 There are £1,000,000 AND 100,000,000, known as Giants & Titans respectively: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/scottish_northernireland.htm --Kurtle (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
See this BBC article which illustrates the £1 million note. Apparently the £1 million note ("Giant") is A5 sized, and the £100 million ("Titan") is A4 sized. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

1 million and 100 million pound banknotes displayed

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&bctid=3122858540001

This video shows the appearance of the 1 million and 100 million (giants and titans). I'm not sure how it would directly relate to the article, but perhaps it could be useful in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChameleonXVX (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Series F signature myth

I have removed a paragraph that claimed all series F £20 notes are signed by Andrew Bailey. I have had the rare opportunity to examine 2 of these notes, and both have different signatures (Chris Salmon and Andrew Bailey respectively). I will gladly provide a scan of these notes as evidence if the Community so desires. Mongoosander (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

£50 note - "Frequently Used"?

Why is the £50 note listed as "frequently used"? No one uses them. The vast majority of shops don't accept them. The only use for them is to put the money into your bank account. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • User:Ezza1995, if you can find any citations or evidence for the claims you make, then you can enter them into the article. That's the joy of Wikipedia - if you can find proof, edit the article, cite the claims, and bingo, improvements/corrections instantly added. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Irish notes

Are we sure that Northern Irish notes are only accepted in Northern Ireland and Scotland? I recently spent one in England no problem. I received a £5 Bank of Ireland note in change from the Upper Crust at Derby train station and spent it a few minutes later in the WH Smith over the other side. When I was at Smith's the manager was training a sales assistant and he was telling her that all English, Scottish and Northern Irish currency is legal tender. Basically, no one battered an eye-lid when I spent the Northern Irish note. It was no more unusual than spending a Scottish one.

I think the point it's trying to make is that NI notes are very rarely seen in England and thus much less likely to be accepted, simply because people are unfamiliar with them. Actually your Smith's manager is wrong about legal tender -- Scottish notes are not legal tender anywhere, not even in Scotland, and English notes (other than the now non-existent £1) are not legal tender in Scotland either; there's a difference between "legal tender" and "commonly accepted" - anything you can get someone else to accept is good money! -- Arwel 17:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've had Ulster notes turned down in Scotland and England. It was more confusing back before the Irish Republic joined the Euro - people always through they were punts. Even now, people just don't understand, mainly because they've not travelled widely in the UK (it might help if they read this article on Wikipedia!). Recently a friend had an NI fiver turned down (in a London WHSmith as it happens). When he protested that it was actually a sterling note, the shop assistant told him "We don't accept sterling". There's only so much ignorance you can cope with in a day. --Cnbrb 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Northern Irish notes are seen in England much less often than Scottish ones, and many people would have no idea what they are. Many of them are/were different colours from corresponding English ones (while Scottish ones are similar) which adds to the confusion. I used to drive taxis in England and while I was given several Scottish notes as payment (never had any problem spending them) I only twice encountered Northern Irish ones. Never seen one before, but realised what they were after seeing "pounds sterling" and "Belfast" on them. That was in 2009ish; I will admit that if I had been given a note with "Danske Bank" on it I would have assumed it to be Danish kroner. I wonder what reaction these "Danish" notes get at bureaux de change overseas? 95.150.232.136 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banknotes of the pound sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Banknotes of the pound sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banknotes of the pound sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Bank of England notes are circulated throughout the UK

The only difference in Scotland and Northern Ireland is that they're not a monopoly and they're not legal tender, just like the local banknotes. I don't think the section on "Bank of England notes" should come under "England and Wales", although their status in England and Wales as being legal tender (and the only notes in the UK to be legal tender anywhere) is worth noting.

For example HSBC, Barclays, etc. all offer Bank of England notes in branch or at cash machines in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's hard to find an reputable source on this though.

Rob984 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling/Archive_1&oldid=1229868269"