Talk:Pound sterling: Difference between revisions

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numismatics: British currency C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British currency task force (assessed as Top-importance). Economics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 11 to 17, 2017 (21st)

Can someone please explain to me why all those languages are needed in the infobox title? This is the english language wikipedia we do not need to provide mass translations. Cornish certainly does not belong there considering its only spoken properly by a few thousand people. I also notice that Manx Pound does not even bother to give the Manx spelling of the name pound sterling so i really have no clue why we are. This is the English language wikipedia, not a place to promote minority languages. If there is no debate within the next few days i will be removing all but the English spelling of the name. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are the native languages of Britain and Ireland, where the pound sterling is used or has been used. For someone who supports the unity of the people of the United Kingdom you don't seem to have a problem with excluding their languages. ~Asarlaí 16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a big problem with the English language wikipedia being used to promote certain causes, such as the promotion of minority regional languages. A few thousand people speak cornish, throughout cornwall is is known as the British pound, or Pound sterling. Not the cornish translation of the term. this is the English language wikipedia.. why is regional language names relevant here? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States dollar only has the English spelling. it does not include lots of other languages spoken in the United States. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian franc has the French, Dutch and German names. Many currency articles have the currency name in "regional" languages. The names are there, hidden, so that anyone who's interested can see them. That's not "promoting a cause". ~Asarlaí 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "Punnd Sasannach" mean "English pound". Surely this is a misnomer? Even if that name is used in Gaelic (and I notice the Gaelic wikipedia does use it) it seems wrong, given that it isn't English, but British. 94.194.221.149 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Only Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are worth a emntion.SAD to see under DEMOGRAPHIC only Great Britain, rather than UK, or at least Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Suspect because all very American on her and they are using GB to mean UK..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.26.129 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the present article:

The symbol for the penny was "d.", from the French denier[citation needed], from the Latin denarius (the solidus and denarius were Roman coins).

So is it from the French or the Latin? I guess the writer here was trying to say it was from the Latin by way of the French?

Someone fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.192.28 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank_Of_England10.png
I noticed that permission to display this image expired over a year ago. I haven't checked the others. 69.129.65.62 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have all the notes I'll put up tomorrow Philpm930 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section relies extensively on the opinion of Sir Alec Cairncross and airbrushes the fact that the slide in value started in Q2 1975 on the back of a large government deficit. It conveys the impression that Callaghan (himself a former Chancellor, and a member of Cabinet as Foreign Secretary since the Labour election win in February, 1974 following the Miners' strike and 3 day week) was unaware of events until he became PM, and ignores the fact that Denis Healey was Chancellor from February 1974 until Labour lost power in 1979. The history of the exchange rate in 1975/76 is here:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/fromshowcolumns.asp?Travel=NIxIRxSUx&FromSeries=1&ToSeries=50&DAT=RNG&FD=1&FM=Jan&FY=1963&TD=7&TM=Jun&TY=1977&VFD=Y&html.x=13&html.y=17&CSVF=TT&C=62R&Filter=N

The section needs revision to provide a more balanced view of the crisis origins and duration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.62.101 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A common slang term is quid, which is singular and plural, except in the common phrase "Quids in!" What about "quids worth", as in "fifty quids worth of petrol"? 82.153.110.183 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although "quids' worth" (with or without the apostrophe) is sometimes used, "quid's worth" is more correct; with the singular it's "a quid's worth". Peter James (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd guess that is simply an elision. It ought to be "fifty quid worth" (as in "you owe me fifty quid"), but that is a little awkward for a native speaker so the "s" creeps in to smooth the pronunciation. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Quid's worth of petrol" is still the singular "Quid" but now possessing "worth of petrol". Gavinayling (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It was customary to specify some prices in guineas". Needs a citation and clarification. Fine art auctions did use to work in guineas and I'm not sure, but it may be that extreme luxury goods were priced that way, but I don't remember anything day to day being priced in guineas. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rule seemed to be that when it was high price goods (mostly premium quality or luxury) price was in guineas, common cheep gods ( (£) s d ). ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorsag (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence can be read at least two ways:

It is legal for shopkeepers to choose to reject any payment, even if it would be legal tender in that jurisdiction, but not in their interest because no debt exists when the offer of payment is made at the same time as the offer of goods or services.

Either it is not in the shopkeeper's interest because no debt exists, or because the payment is legal tender. Could this be clarified?

Bumface11 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former, I think it's clear, but you can clarify it if you wish. p.s. I like your name. :) Rob (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was badly worded and included stuff not pertinent to the discussion. I've removed the excess and, hopefully, made it clearer. Fiddle some more if you think it can be improved. Bazza (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the section titled "Names" I put the correct definition of "quid pro quo" as sourced from the American Heritage Dictionary. I also had a second source for the literal meaning (i.e.: "what for what") from: "Classical Latin An Introductory Course by JC McKeown; Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge Copyright © 2010"(see page 26). I only included the dictionary as a reference since it correctly asserts both the literal and figurative meanings of the phrase. I also removed the {Citation needed} tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What establishes that the pounds used in Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are the same currency as in the UK, but those used in the Falklands, Gibraltar, and Saint Helena are different? -- Beland (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ones if the British Crown Dependencies use the same 3 digit code as the UK and the ones in the British Overseas Territories have their own unique codes. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced based on the 22 carat fine guinea."

The guinea article says it started in 1663; should the above sentence read: "In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced called the 22 carat fine guinea."?184.8.220.129 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twobells. I'm currently in a dispute with two IPs who keep reverting edits whom they aren't entirely aware of. The topic is that the UK at the end of WWI became in debt, but they IPs want to put that Britain became in debt with the US, something not entirely proven as far as I'm concerned. And when they provide a source, one of them to be exact, only provide book passages not covering the entire idea of the edits. Here's the current edit history, and this is the edit I'm talking about. Hope I'm not troubling you, just in case they come back, which I'm sure they will. (N0n3up (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Not entirely proven? It is common knowledge. You are acting like you are completely unaware of how much the UK borrowed (and lended), which became a major talking point in the works of Keynes and the political discussions surrounding the writing of the Treaty of Versailles. Literally a ten second search provides evidence. If anything, numbers are what should be getting discussed. At any rate, since you are acting incapable: P. 424: the primary debtor was he US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you only gave a book passage and doesn't cover the whole concept. (N0n3up (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

And if you keep reading, you'll see that the mentions are that the US was the only one to fund its war deficits and that foreign investment (US) made a significant contribution, nothing of the likes that Britain was in debt with US. And even the investment bit is mentioned as a common misconception. (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States..." I am failing to understand why you seem incapable of understanding the UK owed most of it's money to the United States...

Yet another source (P.15 onwards), and another, and another, another, another, all of whom highlight the UK primarily owed to the US making your ongoing assertion that this isn't the case dubious, and makes one question why you want to censor that it was the US the UK owed? If you read the sources, or study the period, one easily finds that while Britain was owed a lot of money by its allies in Europe they were in financial troubles and couldn't all pay back, the money sent to Russia was lost, and pretty much allied debt and German reparation payments were going to the US to pay off the huge sums of money borrowed until better deals were made a decade later.

Then there is the issue of your edit summaries making no mention of if you even read the sources that were in the article, did they support the material before you claimed it was unsourced and removed it... and you apparent complete lack of understanding of what going on during the period: "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" - trading partner and the US being an ally have nothing to do with the simple fact that the US was the nation the UK owed most of its money to. 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk

Please sign your posts, I've done it for you this time. The first one only states the problem as a sole mention. The second one is about WWII, not WWI. The third one only states the loan problem as simply another issue regarding Britain, and although the US benefited from war loans, it wasn't restricted to the UK, France and other European nations also borrowed from the US. The fourth one you provided states as war-debt as a circled problem among US and European post-WWI problems. The fifth one, like the third one states that although the US benefited from loans during the war, it was the result to loan various European nations, not only Britain. None of the sources provided imply that Britain was in heavy debt to the US. Not to mention that in the fifth one, the European allies decided to dismiss the debts to US since they joined the war at latter stage of the war. And in regards to British trading with the commonwealth, Britain had always relied on her colonies for resources, including economically, reducing the war-loan problem of Britain with US, which was only one of many problems for Britain at the time. Since the current topic of argument isn't 100% concise nor accurate, it was better to generalize along the lines of what happened during and after WWI, especially since it made a very small part of the article, being only part of a sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

So your misreading/completely ignoring sources continues. The second source is called British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War and links to a page talking about the issue during the 1920s...

The sources all support the assertion in the article, that US was the primarily holder of Britain's debt following the war. You are just ignoring the evidence because you do not like it.

You have also failed to address the question posed to you: did you read the source in the article before you made your edits with your weak edit summaries of being unsourced...2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 Because I don't like it? That's nice. Before you fruitpick the sources, please read them carefully. I can assure you I did. In regards to the second source, you misread the part where it mentions WWII, something you should've noticed when Churchill was mentioned. Britain wasn't the only one involved. This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression, and it was various European nations involved. Your sources are right, but Britain's debt was a factor that had the US, Britain and other nations involved, not only the US and Britain. (N0n3up (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I did not misread the source, I provided yet another source that supports what the article stated - that UK owed the US 800 million. Your inability to stay on point is shocking, the accusation of cherrypickibg laughable, and your avoidance of answering questions posed to you notable.2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk)The sources that you provided give a variable image of the situation in discussion and there is much more to the whole image here. Clearly you only wan't to prove you're point right, and you are, to an extent. But the version that you're implying is a bit misleading. And in regards to the last part of your message (the part that's not a borderline personal-attack) I read the sources which you provided and it seems that your only interest lies in being proven right and with a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part (and such a lovely "pathetic" edit summary you provided). But before we can come to a conclusion, please consider the sources that you posted because apart from the fact that Britain was in debt to the US (keep in mind this is "after" WWI), there was a chain of events included in the war-debt, something your intended previous version doesn't cover and thus, like I said, misleading. You said you had another source, can you post it please? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

N0n3up's initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. In this edit he claims that this information is unsourced. He additionally changed reference to British debt being 40 per cent of Government spending to "a considerable amount", claiming that the figure was "Unsourced and uncertain". During his subsequent edits on this article and on Twobells talkpage (1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert) he does not acknowledge if he read the source used in the article thus unable to support his initial claim that the material was unsourced. This point has yet been addressed!

As the edit summaries show, his further edits include ignoring evidence that supports the initial claim in the article and making ill-informed comments such as "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" (irrelevant, not an excuse to revert, and has nothing to do with the discussion) and a false claim to further investigate: "please stand by till I find sources that do". As the above talkpage log, and his further edits show, no such attempt was made to further investigate the subject other than poor attempts to rubbish sources that contradict his position.

As noted in my own edits, what the article states it is not an unsourced statement it is fact. What more than likely should be argued about is the figures.

• Chickering and Forster, Great War, Total War: Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914-1918, p. 424: "In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States, totaled $5.4 billion"
• Hirai, Keynes's Theoretical Development: From the Tract to the General Theory, p. 36: "Britain's enormous war debts - accruing from the huge loans from the Unites States for the war effort ..."
• McDougall, France's Rhineland Policy, 1914-1924, p. 150: "If the United States insisted [which it did] on Britain's recognizing her debt of £800 million ..."
• International Relations, p. 79ff. explains how the UK pretty much only owed the US money
• Self, "Britain, America and the War Debt Controversy", p. 15: "Great Britain was a net creditor to the tune of $6.4 billion ... it owed the United States $4.5 billion ...". Additional information on the Anglo-American loans and repayments follow, including noting the fact that despite being a "net creditor" Britain lost huge sums on funding Russia and would not see all of it's loans repaid by her allies to aid paying off the money owed to America.
• Orde, British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War (despite being written off by N0n3up as being about "WWII, not WWI" and I "should've noticed [this] when Churchill was mentioned.") explains in length about the British re-negotiation with her allies, during the 1920s, on the debts they owed her so they would have to pay less, further reinforcing the point the previous source made that Britain was a "net creditor" in name only.

Then there is the whole issue of if Britain did not owe the US large amounts of money, what was the point of the Balfour Note?

Of course, highlighting this can apparently only be done with "a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part", well is that Britain patriotism or American? Am both, and facts negate ethnic or national ties: the UK owed the US a lot of money due to taking on war loans, and according to some sources the US was pretty much the only country it borrowed from therefore the article was correct and this edit war could have been avoided had N0n3up read the sources provided to him. I would also like to highlight that despite the patronizing "keep in mind this is "after" WWI", the whole discussions centers around the change to the following sentence: "However, by the end of the war the country owed £850 million (£37.3 billion as of 2015,^[1] mostly to the United States". It is not about being right persobally, it is making the article follow what the sources say; The sources are relevant, and cannot just be ignored.2600:1015:B12D:C684:AE0D:B95E:401F:C23A (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made few modifications per this source provided by some IP. The one who started to continue to argue about the content. [1]. And why do you keep saying "gah" in your edit summaries? Are you panting from an over-patriotic overdose. (N0n3up (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Why do my summaries include gah? Simple, despite spoon feeding you, you still ignore the sources and seem incapable of understanding that you are the one editing agaisnt guidelines and wiki policy while engaging in a policy of trollish attacks upon my nationalist ty, who h has no bearing on what the sources say.2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) I knew it, this is patriotically motivated, you don't really care about the information provided, you only care about yourself and being patriotically right. And for your information, the recent tweaks do go according to sources, it says what you and sources imply with added info. I'm not "attacking" your country like you imply, just added more information. And before you accuse me of patriotism, please read my message not what they say, but the grammar used and ask yourself if it's British like you think it is. (N0n3up (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Do you care to back up your personal attacks with evidence? How are my edits (reverting the vandalism you made to this article, and reverting your unsourced assertions) patriotically motivated (I note you failed to read my above edit where I stated I am Anglo-American, and have - from the very beginning - based my comments on what the sources state)? How is following what the sources say, inserting a nationalist tendency into the discussion?

The sources DID NOT say, as you claimed in the article before your edit was reverted and despite the fact that it was unsupported reinserted, that war debts resulted in the Great Depression. It is a weak reading of the sources to even claim that complications arose from war debts leading to the Great Depression. You are not reading the sources, you are misinterpreting them woefully that it is in breach of wiki guidelines and should be considered vandalism. You have demonstrated an inability to correctly use the sources, not bring any sources to the table, and only engage in personal attacks. Admins will be contacted.204.116.6.232 (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

204.116.6.232 (talk)Sigh, I did not at any moment, misread your post. I assumed your anglo-american excuse was to rid of said accusation. Anyways, if you read up to page 82 in here, you will read the following up to the great depression, and keep in mind that the war-debt dilema wasn't the cause, this is an additional fact placed there to shed some light on the topic. And there is nothing about the 40% you keep posting on your edits. And stop changing you IP address, if we're going to talk about this, we might as well if you don't make yourself elusive to contact. May I suggest creating an account? (N0n3up (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If the promised 'further investigation' had of taken place, a quick google search finds at least two sources that engage in the subject: source 1, and source 2. I would imagine further effort would bring about further evidence and more detail.204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

204.116.6.232 (talk) Then why did you keep reverting me instead of providing the source first? (N0n3up (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Never mind, already put the first one there. (N0n3up (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pound sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160119104424/http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Jersey+Currency/default.htm to http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Jersey+Currency/default.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anstoyanov's edit at 12:23, 24 October 2016‎ is either unclear or untrue. The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro with 5% for just 1 night. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for 1.5USD, the morning next day when the results was clear, 1 GBP was trading for 1.34USD.

1. The edit begins with an assertion about sterling against the euro but then continues by referring to the sterling - dollar exchange; I suggest this lacks clarity. Would it not make more sense to say: The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro by 5%. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for €1.30; on the day following the referendum, when the result was clear, 1 GBP was trading at €1.23.

2. Since sterling is now trading at c.€1.12 (14% down since 22/06/16), how can it be true to say Brexit weakened the pound for just 1 night? Here we are (four months later) and the pound is still lower against the euro than it was on the morning following the referendum, let alone the night before; hardly just 1 night.

3. The figures against the dollar are equally misleading if intended to refer to just 1 night. On 22nd June (the night before the referendum) the pound was trading at $1.466; on 24th June (the morning after the referendum) it closed at $1.3694 which is a 6% fall. As I write, it's trading at $1.2232 - a fall of 16.5% since the night before the referendum. Again, that's hardly weaker for just 1 night.

4. The article cited ("What next for businesses seeking to protect against Sterling Volatility Post Brexit? - Transfermate News". www.transfermate.com.) doesn't suggest that Sterling fell 5% against Euro for just 1 night", but rather that it weakened sterling against the euro in just one night, which is not the same thing at all (and is probably why the article cited as a reference doesn't use the phrase just 1 night at all.) The article cited also notes that there was further weakness expected over the coming weeks. - a prophesy that turned out to be true but which the edit doesn't mention at all.

As this edit stands, it seems to me, it's misleading - not through its being factually inaccurate but in its relying on half the facts and concealing the rest (which is probably worse than being wholly inaccurate!)

Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TeekeeyMisha, you are right. Just tried to include the information I thought it was missing. Tried to be as accurate as possible, but maybe haven't been able to explain it well. If you can help with this, it'll be great. If not, you can remove this sentence or change it as you think it'll be best for the wiki readers.--Anstoyanov (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right - the information was missing and does need to be included. I've tried to make it a little clearer. See what you think; doubtless someone will come along and change it if I've made a poor job of it!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these edits:

• my removal of Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom
• reversion by Alkari because "the pound is a currency of the whole UK, not just Scotland"
• my removal again

The pound may be the currency of the whole UK, but WP:SUBCAT says

an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category

Pound sterling is in Category:Currencies of Scotland, which is in Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom, so Pound sterling is already indirectly in Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom and does not need to be in it directly Mitch Ames (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420013058/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/british-antarctic-territory/ to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/british-antarctic-territory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630104507/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/tristan-da-cunha to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/tristan-da-cunha

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) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Manx pound" ("IMP"), "Jersey pound" ("JEP") and "Guernsey pound" ("GGP") simply do not exist as separate currencies according to the Bank of England [2], any more does a "Scottish pound" exist before Scottish Independence! The Isle of Man Government, the States of Jersey and the States of Guernsey have never claimed that they are issuing separate currencies from the £. They are self-regulated (but nevertheless under the ultimate oversight of the Ministry of Justice of HMG in the UK, on behalf of the Bank of England) local issues of the £ not (directly or formally) regulated, authorized or licensed by the Bank of England. --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great deal of valuable content in the Jersey pound article, such as the history of currency in Jersey pre-1834. There's more than enough content for separate articles. I think there is a case though for renaming the article. "Jersey pound" certainly gives the impression of it being a separate currency. Perhaps "Currency in Jersey"? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this issue, but this article is already quite long. If there is enough separate content for these articles, but the separate names are confusing, this should be stated clearly in the lede and also maybe a rename is appropriate as per Curb Safe Charmer. Mvolz (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grey area, but the Currency Act 1992 (an Act of Tynwald, the relevant legislative body) states that the Manx pound is "at parity with" the pound sterling, which implies that it is not one and the same currency. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curb Safe Charmer (talk that there is valuable information the Jersey pound article, but the same can be said about the Alderney pound article, the Guernsey pound article, and the Manx pound article. These articles are long enough and with interesting images to be kept just as they are now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, the page is about a related but separate topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the Bank of England source mentions the Crown Dependency note issues. I don't believe that that any of them have sufficient substance to be a distinct currency (as opposed to a note and coin issue - and whether or note the notes are BoE backed isn't relevant to that). For a currency the majority of the money exists electronically, and none of these territories have any distinction in the electronic banking systems or accounts of the banking grounds - deposited funds are merely shown as sterling, which would not be the case if non-physical funds were an obligation on the dependency governments. However, even if these are note issues and not currencies, they each have a rich history and useful information, so keep. Mauls (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. These pages have more than enough history to warrant their own articles, regardless of whether or not they are recognized by the Bank of England in the present year. For example, just because we no longer view Prussia as a nation in 2018 doesn't mean we should be merging that page with Germany. All these pages have their own history which is why they were created as separate entities in the first place. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's too much content on each of the articles to make for a clean and convenient merge without resulting in a bloated, barely readable article, plus, they are referring to different currencies, and thus subjects, entirely. xe.com lists the Jersey, Manx, & Guernsey pound as separate currencies to Pound sterling, as well.^[1][2][3] AtlasDuane (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - would complicate this page. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this statement from #Etymology: However, the perceived narrow window of the issuance of this coin, and the fact that coin designs changed frequently in the period in question, led Philip Grierson to reject this in favour of a more complex theory.^[1] I did so first for the obvious reason that no information is given about this "more complex theory", and second because the citation doesn't mention Philip Grierson as an author, nor does WorldCat list him among "All authors and contributors".^[2] Of course it can be reinstated but it needs evidence of authorship and some clue as to what this more complex theory is (and how it passes WP:FRINGE). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the same material (with an explanation of Grierson's theory) is given at Sterling silver, but with the same erroneous citation. I will fix that citation but don't really see a case to restore it here unless the explanation is given, because the etymology is incidental to this article and it is wp:undue go into great detail. If anyone disagrees strongly, I won't oppose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a relic from the early days of this article? AFIK, the £1 note is demonetised everywhere and has been for many many years (though of course it can be redeemed at the issuing bank, but that is not evidence of use). Is there a good reason to retain this item in the infobox? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really should link to The Royal Bank of Scotland £1 note rather than Bank of England £1 note. -- AxG / ✉  21:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would question this claim: "The pound sterling is the world's oldest currency still in use and which has been in continuous use since its inception."

Gold has been used since ancient times.

John Cross (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but so too have cattle, axe-heads and many other alternatives to direct barter. Which makes the real question: what fundamentally differentiates a currency from any other bartering intermediary? How is gold coinage different from gold bullion?

Philosophical questions aside, the statement in the article is supported by a reliable source (BBC). So unless you can produce a better citation that says otherwise, the text as it stands should stay and I have reverted your disputed tag accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article called "This is why we use gold as currency" published by the World Economic Forum (https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52748720101108). The article says "Perhaps modern societies would be well-served by looking at the properties of gold, to see why it has served as money for millennia, especially when someone’s wealth could disappear in a click." Gold also has an ISO currency code: XAU meaning that is recognised as a currency by an international standard setting organisation (see: https://www.currency-iso.org/en/home/tables/table-a1.html). John Cross (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gold as a medium of exchange (barter intermediary) went through many phases but it was not until it was coined that it is credible to call it a currency. Arbitrarily sized nuggets, scraps, war booty etc are not currencies. Gold ceased to be a currency about 50 years ago (see gold standard); today much of it is used in industrial processes (especially electronics) like copper, with most of the rest is turned into trinkets. Otherwise it is a fetish for those who don't approve of fiat currency or just want to pump and dump it. Its price varies rather wildly with world tension, perceived threat, and commodity trader speculation. XAU is simply short-hand for "a troy ounce of gold", included with the actual currencies for convenience, see ISO 4217#X currencies (...'several things which are "similar to" currencies'...). No NPOV source calls it a currency. In the real world, gold is sold by the kilogram ingot: small amounts like a troy ounce are 'specials' for the retail trade.

All of the above takes us dangerously close to wp:NOTFORUM and should not continue. As far as this article is concerned, the only thing that matters is what reliable third party sources say. Our opinions as editors are irrelevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Это когда 1$ был равен 0,75 руб..

Нынешний 1руб. ~ 1/200 тогдашнего.

Итого=~5 ООО "руб." чего-то. Те миллионеры были настоящими ! 50 000 000 000руб. - всяко не 11т.р. ..

Поэтому я нисколько не удивился когда брат Кварцнегера начал глотать воздух как рыба на берегу .. )))

176.59.212.243 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BoE will always accept old coins and notes for ever, even if they have been demonetised. This does not make them 'used' in any sense. A very strong case must be made (supported by reliable sources) that pre-decimal coins are even legal tender, let alone 'rarely used'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some pre-decimal coins are legal tender, but most are not. The regular issues were generally demonitised as part of decimalisation, or when the equivalent decimal denominations were made smaller.

The exceptions are (from memory):

• Maundy coins and circulation issues that look like them (silver 2d and 3d), which were redenominated into new pence in 1971.
• Issues that didn't circulate after the war anyway, so didn't need removing (i.e. double florins, crowns and sovereigns).

Silver and gold from before 1816 and copper from before 1860 was long-gone already.

I think it would be better to get rid of the distinction between "frequently" and "rarely" used, and just list the coins and notes currently issued for circulation. I suspect the point of the exercise was to model situations like the US half and the Canadian 50 cent, which are technically circulation coins that get issued every year but are rarely used in practice. Kahastok talk 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with getting rid of the coins "rarely" section as it currently stands. I had a go at improving it but was firmly and abruptly put down by John Maynard Friedman for having tried. The coins "rarely" section might, instead, contain the bizarre marketing ploy from the Royal Mint (6p), linked to Sixpence_(British_coin)#2016_decimal_sixpence, and a simple link to Maundy money. The assertion above that the BoE will always accept old coins is false [3]. Notes are a different matter and can always be exchanged for their original value [4]. Nonetheless, these also should probably be omitted from the infobox's notes section. I'll leave all this to others lest I'm accused again of "massive WP:OR", whatever that it. Bazza (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "massive POV" but I doubt that you would be any the less insulted so I withdraw. But for these coins to be included in the table needs substantial consensus for such a substantial change.

Actually I tagged the "Christmas sixpence" as "not in citation given" (except that your edit collided with it so it hasn't happened) because the citation says nothing about use for circulation. I agree completely that it is just a cynical bit of taking the urine by the RM.

Maundy money is a special case: again it is not for circulation and is only of interest to coin collectors and royalty obsessives. As Terry Pratchett might have said "this is a new meaning of the word 'use' that I haven't come across before".

I agree that these coins should be listed in the article (you forgot about groats, btw) but just not in the infobox as any kind of real world use. I'm sure we can resolve this question with good will all round. And then go for a game of push ha'penny! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver sixpence

I have been bold and just deleted the modern silver sixpence as just a money-making gimmick, the Mint selling their reputation for a mess of pottage. Why should we give them any free advertising space? I won't complain if anyone really thinks it has to go back but if so, see next. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I keep on wondering whether we really need to give it as much weight on Sixpence (British coin) as we give it. Given that it is little more than a money-making gimmick. Kahastok talk 22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about 'not intended for circulation' coins?

There are a number of coins in the list that, per discussion above, cannot be described as "rarely used". They are't used at all. This is not like the Peter Rabbit 50p that everyone is hoarding because they heard about someone somewhere on Facebook. I wonder if a new 'type' field could be introduced to the template to cater such things? In the meantime, I've given them a footnote but it is not really satisfactory. Anyone got a better idea? because this one is pretty poor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a proposal on the article to just get rid of anything that isn't intended for circulation.

As I say, I think the "rarely used" coins are intended to mean, they exist, they can circulate, people do use them occasionally. Not - as in this case - coins that were never intended to circulate and that even banks will generally reject.

And the £1m and £100m interbank banknotes are in the same bracket. They aren't "rarely used". They're a legal curiosity which doesn't belong here. Kahastok talk 21:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok and John Maynard Friedman: Good result all round. Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is contrary to WP:EGG to wlink the RBS one pound note to "£1 (Scottish)" because of the risk of confusion with pound scots.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:COMMONNAME description for such a thing, which, being also described in the Banknotes of Scotland, is reasonably referred to as a Scottish pound note. The current text is an improvement on the previous £1 description, but I agree it could be improved further. Bazza (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know and agree. My challenge was to the wikilink "£1 (Scottish)". How about "£1 (RBS)"?

Of course there is a second issue: no such notes have been issued since 2001 and were described in 2006 as 'rarely seen'. (The fact that Scottish bank notes are not legal tender anywhere does make it difficult to come up with a form of words but either way I would urge strongly that it been removed from the table as it is long past the stage of 'rarely used'). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have implemented this as part of my proposal described above. Kahastok talk 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is unclear: "it would, according to many critics, have led to suboptimal interest rates, harming the British economy".

Indeed, Eurostat shows short-term interest rates are lower in the euro area than in the UK, since 2012 (Source: Eurostat (tec00035) and (irt_st_m), ECB) with 1.17 point difference in 2019.

Difference in Money market interest rates (monthly data [irt_st_m]) is 0.52.

What do you mean by suboptimal interest rates? -- user:77.193.104.197 11:49, 29 June 2020‎

The source, the Conservative newspaper The Daily Telegraph, is behind a pay-wall so we can't see precisely what it is intended but I suspect it is something along the lines of (a) the UK has a long term habit of running deficits in both international trade and government budget, so has tended to need higher (than peers) interest rates to control inflation; and (b) the UK's economic cycle has not tended to synchronise with that of the rest of Europe [it tends to be tossed between the EU and US cycles and consequently is rather turbulent) so may need higher rates when the Continent needs low, and vice versa. That was the context for Gordon Brown's Five Economic Tests. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have always known GBP as 'the Great British Pound' yet within this article/page it is said GB (Great Briton) has been added to P (Pound) to form GBP yet in everyday free speech in the country of origin 'the Great British Pound' is used to refer to GBP. Could this be added? ^[1] Great article otherwise. Regards Peter Pavessey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a backronym to me. The common names are "Pound sterling", "sterling" and "British Pound". The actual origin is the same as every other three letter acronym for a currency: first two letters are the ISO 3166-1 code for the country (GB) and the third letter is the initial letter of the currency name (Pound). Compare USD, CAD, AUD, JPY, CNY. (By the way, Great Britain is smaller than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The currency printers that were listed before were inaccurate so I have corrected it.

The banks listed before are now subsidiaries of bigger banks and the rights to print would be held by the parent company.

Even the U.K government are considering getting rid of Scottish notes as there are no independent Scottish printers to print a unique Scottish issue.

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute about whether Operation Bernhard is a significant event in history to be deserving of mention. The article is very long and we really need to make every sentence earn its keep. I don't see that this one does. The plan's first attempt failed completely. The small amounts produced in its second attempt did not, and were not intended to, destabilise the currency. I really can't see how it passes the WP: DUE test. Put in See Also? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where the dispute is that you refer to. According to the FA article on Operation Bernhard it was significant enough for the Bank of England to issue a new design after the war. I think it deserves mention, but with a referenced comment, which it does not have now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my concern is about where it was: in the history of the currency. It had no material effect on the currency. It did have some effect on the banknotes and I see that it is mentioned briefly in that section. Perhaps it could be amplified there? @Oppa gangnam psy:, would that satisfy you? All: we don't have a section on forgery. Should we?.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt duty bound to restore it after my unintentional deletion (so it’s not my work). You decide what’s best, but three wiki lines for this trivia isn’t bad. Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If desired, leave “Bernard” as-is for now. Make a well thought-out “forgeries” section first before moving it around again. Well though out = won’t reach to 100 lines of edit lol. Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(sry, I'm no native speaker) :

This section does not contain fresh data.

Isn't there a diagram showing the inflation rate of the Pound sterling in the recent years ?

Or a high quality source that is regularily updated ?

thanks in advance for any contributions to the areticle ! --Präziser (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For long version, see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graph not done but it is readily available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7g7/mm23 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources, including Reuters, still use the abbreviation. It is also a stylistic choice used by some writers for https://www.poundsterlinglive.com and even some material on the Bank of England's website. While STG is not as common as it once was, to suggest it isn't used at all is demonstrably untrue.