DaveG38

Well, I've just received my 1961 florin from Mark and very nice it is too. I have had a bit of luck lately, when I managed to pick up 1959, 1958, 1957 and 1954 florins in damn near UNC for just £1 each. Certainly the 1958 and 1957 are UNC, whereas the other two are a touch under this - an extremely good extremely fine grade. They are certainly good enough for me and my 20thC upgrades. Not now worth spending considerable sums on trying to achieve perfect BU specimens for these dates.

A gunshot from a grassy knoll, aliens landing at Roswell, astronauts faking moon landings, and the evil hand of George W Bush behind 9/11 You left out Cyril, the cosmic cephalopod, the creator of everything in the universe, who spends his time skimming the surface of Alpha Centauri, muttering in ancient languages and cursing in pidgin English..

I want to know why there isn't a Edward VIII penny in there - that would make it worthwhile. On a different, but allied subject, I'm constantly surprised that the Mint haven't cottoned on to the wealth of collectors out there and started to produce their own re-strikes of past coins. Think of the carnage that could bring, say if there were 'new' 1905 halfcrowns, or a few more 1954 pennies etc. Or is there something in statute that stops them doing this? Or maybe it's just that the punches no longer exist.

I think, if there were any genuine concerns about ballot rigging, that the SNP would have been keeping a very close eye on things on the night and the accusations of widespread rigging (because that it what is being alleged here) would have long surfaced by now in a big way. In short, the SNP would have been screaming from the rooftops, even demanding a criminal investigation. They are not, which to me says that there is nothing wrong with this result at all. I don't know what the writer of this piece saw or thought he saw, but he seems to have information from a wide range of places, so he clearly wasn't there to see things himself. Either that or he has combed through TV footage and has come to conclusions that may or may not be correct. If he genuinely believes that fraud has taken place, then he should raise it with the police and the returning officers to see what that brings. My guess would be nothing as there's nothing to find. Anybody who has taken the trouble to examine the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 will know that a whole lot of erroneous and downright malicious claims can be dredged up out of nothing, usually based on ignorance or the prejudices of those making the claims. I suspect that's what we are seeing here.

Anybody seen the latest commercial offering from the Royal Mint? If not, you'll love this one. http://blog.royalmint.com/victoria-elizabeth-pennies/ Why anybody, even an amateur, would go for this is beyond me. Makes Coincraft look like good value!

I didn't realise you were 90 something!!

I'd still like a 1816 three shillings to complete the set!! A few have gone through auctions in the last 10 years, though none of these appeared to be unc despite the catalogues saying they were. Any genuine unc is likely to be worth the money spent. NGC pop reports suggest they have slabbed 1 at 64 and 2 at 65, though what grade they are or whether still slabbed is anyone's guess. Hope springs eternal. I've seen one or two GVF or so ones, which would be acceptable, but the prices are still very high for what is as you say a thoroughly unattractive coin.

I'd still like a 1816 three shillings to complete the set!!

I love the 3d i think it was the first silver coin that I had in my early collecting days and it was 1917, it was probably fair, and even now nearly 40 yrs later the one i got now is probably Fine! but thats just the way it goes. The trouble with the threepence is the tedious designs it displays. Leave aside the brass ones for a moment and look at the silver and its fundamentally unchanged right back to 1689. Prior to that, you do get a Roman III in James II's reign and interlinked Cs, with Charles II, but apart from that it's all crowned '3's all the way. Not much real design innovation at all.

Not only that, but when I was a kid in the dying days of LSD (not THAT LSD), pretty much all halfpennies in change were George II and Elizabeth II. There were very few decent George V and practically no Edward VII or Victoria, when compared to say Pennies. Even now, decent quality halfpennies are not as common as other denominations, nor are they as collected. Not too long ago, I picked up a job lot of EF-UNC Edward VII halfpennies for £140 plus commission, and that included a GEF Low Tide variety. In one single purchase, I upgraded every one of my Edwards without much outlay. Why nobody else wanted to buy this lot in the auction, I've no idea, but similar lots of pennies were going well over the price I paid, so I guess unpopularity explains it.

I certainly collect halfpennies - I find them more interesting and varied than copper/bronze pennies, which after all only go back to 1797, whereas the humble halfpenny is good back to 1672. On top of that you've got the interest of the tin series, plus a whole range of errors or whatever in the William/George eras. Beats pennies any day for me.

I believe its slightly more complicated than that. At the moment RBS is a national UK bank regulated by the FSA, BOE etc. and all tax revenues (not much at present due to losses sustained over the past few years) are paid to HMRC. Come independence, the HQ moves to London, which means that the tax take for the UK and Scotland will then be proportional to the business in each country. Given 5 Million Scots and 55-60 million UK citizens,even though they don't all have RBS bank accounts, it is obvious that the majority of business will be in the UK and hence the tax take will be much greater than in Scotland. That's my understanding. However, there's a couple of much more significant points. Firstly, over time, senior managers will migrate to London, followed by lesser staff, until at some point the decision will be made to close the HQ in Scotland (not the branches though). It doesn't have to happen, but all my experience in business shows that this is the usual way that companies act. The second, more serious issue is the message that the re-location sends concerning confidence in Scotland. The action in itself is simply about the banks reassuring its customers that their money will be safe, with the BOE backing them, but of course the opposite view then gets taken that investment in Scottish banks could not be trusted, and that may be very damaging to business in general.

I think you'll find that London accounts for around 25% of the total UK tax take, so my bet is that they certainly will pay tax.

There is a plus side then. Depends on your point of view. As I understand it, when a company moves its HQ, it also moves the jurisdiction where it pays its taxes. At the moment it doesn't matter as the revenues go the treasury anyway, but post-independence the move of RBS, HBOS etc. may mean that the tax revenue will go to the UK exchequer not to the Scottish government. If too many financial institutions take this action, then Scotland will have to find ways of bridging the tax take gap. And when it comes to financial businesses, that's a huge tax take.

As I understand it they would have no choice under EU regulations. These basically require any bank to have its headquarters based in the country where it does most of its business. Since Scotland would be a separate country that would mean that RBS would look at its operation and conclude that it has to move south because the majority of its customers are in the UK. I would expect this to apply to all other financial institutions, unless their customer base is largely in Scotland, in which case it will be able to legally rmain there.

OK, so long as all existing coins don't have to be re-punched retrospectively!!

I haven't seen the full article, so can't comment other than to say that this is likely to be the northern cities yet again complaining that all the English investment takes place down south, which happens because foreign companies want to be in the London area. Scotland has made an effort to secure inward investment since Holyrood opened for business and presumably this sentence reflects these concerns. Any regional development bodies are usually a waste of time, so it depends on what the above statement refers to. Scotland is definitely better served in this respect than the north of England. For all the Scots' worry about Westminster, the north of England isn't even on the map for people in government, and the further north you go the more remote you are from Westminster, whose radar ceases to function north of the Watford Gap. How about the north going on its own too and forming a country broadly based on the ancient Mercia?. The M62 corridor and north accounts for about 20% of GDP. No problem with a northern country, just so long as they don't want any tax revenue from London and the SE. I would point out that 25% of the total tax take of the UK comes from London, so one of the problems with federalisation would be very different tax and spend regimes in the different regions. In short you'd probably see the estblishment of some very poor areas, with high tax rates and people moving out to other areas where tax is lower. One of the advantages of the UK as a whole is standardisation of tax rates. Vary this at your peril.

We can always trump him by setting up as a new member called Aaadvark That's aaaardly fair is it?

I think you are echoing my own views about the resentment that will build between the English and Scots, but also between Scots - those who vote 'no' and those who vote 'yes' are very evenly balanced and as such the country is very badly split down the middle. I don't see peace and harmony ahead, whatever happens.

Oh dear, you really need to step back a little - the idea that we English want 'the Scots to pay through the nose for bugger all' is just silly rhetoric, although if that is your genuine opinion then it seems to me that you regard the English with the same contempt that you think the English hold the Scots. That doesn't exactly give you any kind of moral high ground or if widespread a basis for an ongoing relationship between the two countries, does it? As for your quote, well its 3 years old, and things have moved on. What is now a current fact is that a number of large banks around the world have started advising their clients to withdraw their capital from Scottish based institutions. If they act on this, then I've no doubt that the BOE will step in with support, up until independence day, after that well......... As I've posted on here already, I shall be one of them taking my cash elsewhere. As for the way that the English regard Scotland, you need to start looking at things from the English perspective as well as the Scots one. If independence is achieved there will be knock on effects into rUK. If the money markets don't react well, then interest rates will no doubt rise affecting everyone in both rUK and Scotland. Arguments about oil and about currency union won't stop the markets making their judgments. So it could well be that everyone with a mortagage will see a hike in repayments. That has a big knock on effect on the economy, which could then slip back to recession or at best stagnate. All, it has to be said, caused by the 'yes' vote. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it that will build a huge resentment on the part of the English against Scotland, who will have been seen to put their self-interest above everyone else's. Given that situation, there will be no case for the Scots to start bleating if the English don't want to act friendly, who won't buy their goods, who do put up customs borders etc., because that will be the English acting in their self-interest, as we should. This thing will work both ways. Unfortunately, i think most of those who support 'yes' think that everything will carry on as before, everybody will still love the Scots and at the same time they will get everything they want and more from London. In my books dream on. It won't happen. There will be major consequences, at present unforseen.

I agree that it isn't in the UK's interest to let Scotland flounder, nor do I think it will do so. However, I do think that in the event of a 'yes' vote, we'll suddenly find that English politicans toughen up their stance in negotiations and AS will find that all his demands and ranting about what he wants and Scotland should have will count for very little when faced with England's demands - it takes two and I don't see Westminster rolling over and giving him what he wants. I certainly don't see Westminster MPs just quietly voting for AS, not after he has trashed the union and instigated a very acrimonious divorce. Take a simple case. Suppose that there is a 'yes' vote and AS demands but doesn't get his currency union, and he then walks away from the debt. Leave aside the impact on Scotland's borrowing, but why would the UK government allocate a single penny of any assets to the Scots in that situation. Surely anybody with an ounce of backbone would say OK, you owe us X billions, so instead to set against the debt, we'll keep the embassies, we'll keep all the military hardware, we'll keep all the gold reserves etc. etc. AS would have no case for demanding his share and the divorce will then descend into very bitter territory. Things might even come to a point where the UK government takes a very negative approach to Scotland and that won't be good for anybody.

I'm not making any comment on the referendum itself, but in the event of a 'Yes' vote and a re-affirmation of 'no currency union', something I don't seriously think will change as too many UK politicians have said they won't agree to it and I don't think that MPs in parliament would vote for it to happen anyway, my first actions will be to clear my Natwest bank account out to an English based bank. And my Halifax ISA's will also be coming out into a bank that can guarantee their safety. I would strongly advise everybody else on here to consider their own best interests in the event of a 'Yes' vote. There's already been some cash flow out of Scottish financial institutions and I would hate to find anybody losing out as a result of failing to act because of this vote. In short, remember Northern Rock??

I only have one slabbed CGS coin, a 2014 sovereign, bought mainly for it's bullion value, not as a numismatic purchase particularly. The price was no greater than the bullion value at that time, so from this I conclude that there would be little additional value in slabbing very modern coins, as there doesn't seem to be a premium for this service. It is, however, just one example.

I don't see the relevance, unless you are going to claim that the UK started the war in Syria and is secretly funding IS with the aim of scaring the Scots into voting to stay as part of the UK. Seems very far fetched to me - I don't buy the idea that everything that governments do has some hidden political agenda, aimed at whatever current problem there is. Sometimes it's just a matter of the government doing what it sensibly needs to as part of its overall job. I worked with the specific security warning system as part of my job in the past, and there's nothing political about this system - it's always based on credible threats that are perceived by the Security Services. By and large those threats don't impinge on the general public, but make life more difficult for the staff and security officers at government buildings/installations, although I will concede that 7/7 did rather change that position.