DaveG38

My understanding is that they would be elected to the 59 seats at the 2015 general election and would then cease to be MPs at the date of Scottish independence. This could bring an interesting situation if Labour won with a very small majority, since they would suddenly have to contend with the loss of a large block of seats. I've always though that independence for Scotland would bring all kinds of unintended consequences of which this is one.

I don't think any of the serious politicians involved in this debate/campaign have ever claimed outright that 'Scotland can't keep the pound'. What George Osborne, Danny Alexander and Ed Balls all vetoed was use of the pound 'within a currency union'. There's a huge difference between the two positions. Without a currency union, as has been said many times, Scotland would have no lender of last resort, no access the BOE funding, no control over interest rates etc. plus there would be knock-on effects on certain of it's industries, notably banking, insurance etc. The reasons why the UK politicians have said no to a currency union are three fold: Firstly, the issue of transaction costs that AS is fond of quoting cuts both ways. Yes, it would increase costs for goods crossing the border from England to Scotland, but that increase in terms of UK GDP is small and workable. However, it is much more important to Scotland, since much of its exports are to England and here transactions costs could hurt. Thus the gaianing of a currency union is much more in Scotland's interests than it is the UK's. In fact, it could be that those costs upset the balance of value in taking Scottish goods, to the point that UK companies find it cheaper even with Euro to Pound costs to source elsewhere. The UK politicians know all this and judge that plan B for AS will be to use the pound anyway. The idea that he would go for a Scottish pound or the Euro isn't on the horizon in the short term. In these circumstances, they see no need to offer a union with all the risks that entails when they don't need to, and so they are saying 'no.' The second reason is the one of risk. They've looked across to Europe and seen the mess in the Eurozone and they have learned lessons accordingly. In the Eurozone it's quite clear that fiscal and monetary policy will only work within a closer political framework, getting ever closer to a union. In short, what we currently have in the UK, between the four countries. Scotland, if it became independent, would be moving in the exact opposite direction i.e. less integration, no political union etc. So, it's crystal clear why even the most idiotic UK politician wouldn't go for a currency union. Apart from all this, there's also the small matter of how you administer this union. It means government departments, endless meetings and politics/arguments with a foreign government, all a major distraction from running the UK, and is something that can be avoided by simply having nothing to do with it. It's rather like companies that sell off small subsidiaries even though they may be profitable. It's just that the main board simply doesn't want to have to deal with non-core businesses. That is how the UK would perceive Scotland. Thirdly, the most obvious one, which is that the UK population would object very strongly to a divorce where the leaving party still wants access to the bank account. Not only that, but the chances of any government getting a bill with currency union in it passed trhough parliament would almost certainly fail. That's it. For me the logic is clear and unambiguous. I rest my case.

As Peckris says DON'T use simple nail polish remover - try the chemists for pure acetone.

I'm not guaranteeing it won't affect the coins surface, but people on here have, in the past, recommended using acetone for gentle cleaning. The overall experience has been one of not affecting the toning of the coin being cleaned. The advantage of using this substance is that it will shift most gummy residues e.g from cellotape, labels etc. The only downside may be that once you have used it and cleaned off the face of the coin, incluidng the goo, you find that the sticky patches have themselves affected the overall toning of the coin, so that you are left with patches, except they won't be sticky any more.

Based on the photo the only value would be as scrap bronze. The only possible exception would be if you just happen to have one of the rarer varieties of the 1914 or 1915 farthing and the verdigris isn't too bad or can be easliy removed. That's very much a long shot, so don't get your hopes up, and even then the value isn't likely to be that high. For instance, I bought a 1915 close TT type from one of the dealers on here for about £80 in a solid VF condition.

There is no way to remove the gold gilding. By gilding the coin surface is irreversibly modified. The only readily available substance that can dissolve gold through a practicable process is Aqua Regia, which is a 3:1 mixture of concentrated hydrochloric and nitric acids. Problem is the nitric acid will rapidly dissolve away the copper as well, so not a practicable solution at all. Not only that you will also risk being poisoned by the Dinitrogen Tetroxide given off as a heavy brown gas in the process. Learn to love your gilding is the best advice there is.

Arsenic in the coins we collect? http://books.google.com/books?id=o-5AAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=copper+coins+arsenic&source=bl&ots=Q3qbFU4TmX&sig=DcVJX6j3jArFiNiCobCuXdWTBso&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AIjcU_DGIoGVyASu7oGoAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=copper%20coins%20arsenic&f=false Not a major problem as the elemental metal isn't poisonous - its the oxide which is deadly. Plus, of course, the concentrations are very low, so nothing to worry about.

Just looked at 5 spares of mine and they all look like yours.

Seeing as it has 'COPY' clearly impressed into the reverse, you'd have to be a blind idiot to buy this for £300. Maybe the seller meant £3?

I don't see any way that those artifacts were contained in a tin laid in the ground. Even the tin itself looks in far too good a condition. Add to that that the coin looks remarkably like the repros being produced a few years ago, and I'd say that the seller (with his feedback of just 8) has gone to a little trouble to 'age' a repro and has thrown in some other materials for good measure to add to his story. What I can't understand is how 27 people could bid it up to £1500 or so, without asking some pretty obvious questions about it, or at the least carrying out a bit of basic research. One look at the rim tells you it's much thicker than the genuine article.

Nice background too for this fine polished piece of antique silver! Bit of a shame really, considering the auctions are raising money for charity. He's got an interesting range of items for sale. They seem to be either fossils/minerals, ancient roman objects, coins or mens leather play wear, for want of a better term.

I'm pretty sure it's Ethiopean - I sold this small silver version (apparently a rarer variety!) a few years ago.

The difficulty with any claim regarding this recipe is complicated by the fact that the first Indian restaurant to open in the UK was in 1812, believe it or not!! Although it didn't last long, it does show that Indian food has been around for a long time in the UK, so the originator of the Tikka Masala recipe may be lost in the mists of history - a bit like my memory.

No, I guess not right next to each other, but only a yard or so apart and the coins are in an album. Would that make that much difference? After all, the atmosphere and its impurities in which they both live is much the same.

Azda, Accepted, thank you, with no hard feelings. I don't think its a matter of taking the pound back. The currency of the UK is the pound and if Scotland leaves the UK it can continue to use the pound, as any country can, but what it loses is any control over that currency. That's a simple consequence of independence. There's nothing childish about the government's position on a formal currency union, since it would not be in the UK's interest to enter into one. Obvious really when you look at the state of the eurozone where the currency union has all but failed without political union. It will only work if the Eurozone countries enter into a closer political union, but this is the opposite direction from that being taken by Scotland. That means no currency union with Scotland. Only the bilndly prejudiced or politically dishonest claim otherwise. Doesn't piss me off in the slightest. I'm just surprised that you would post something that is so clearly prejudicial to the Scots, since the underlying view it gives is not a very flattering one. I don't particularly care, but I thought those Scots who like to be regarded as friendly, welcoming and inclusive might have taken exception to the caricature of them that it depicted, especially the underlying grain of truth it contains.

No, I'm not raising the thorny old issue of rainbow toning and all that goes with it. I am interested in views on how best to artificially re-tone dipped silver coinage. I have got one or two nice GVF - EF George II shillings, which have been dipped at sometime in their lives and are now very clean and lifeless. I've had them for some years now but they show little signs of naturally re-toning and so I'm wondering if there is any simple way to re-tone them. In some ways I'm slightly surprised that they don't re-tone fairly quickly anyway. Right next to them, I have a small silver photo frame, which I clean with silver polish every now and then. This frame darkens quite quickly, certainly within a couple of years to a nice dark tone, yet the coins stay stubbornly bright. Any ideas, why this doesn't happen to the coins? As a chemist by education, I'm aware that the toning on silver is fundamentally Silver Sulphide, so that should mean that exposing the coins to Hydrogen Sulphide gas should accelerate the process, but again in my experience this doesn't seem to do the trick as it should. There are other means of trying to get a reaction from sulpher on the surface, such as simply soaking the coin in water to which flowers of sulphur have been added - only a tiny amount of sulphur dissolves, but it should be enough to give a slow surface reaction on the silver. Again, no joy. So, its contentious I know, but is there an acceptable way to do this?

Sorry, but your memory deceives you. I have never (anywhere) suggested that the rest of the UK should have any vote on Scottish independence. I made no claim about racism whatsoever. I did point out though that the reference you posted whilst superficially amusing carrried a rather nasty undertone, since it was clearly making the point that there are many mean spirited people in Scotland who take pleasure in seeing England defeated. That was the thrust of the article you posted and it was clearly your intention to air that view - I'm not sure why you want to publicise this negative view of the Scots as it does them no favours. By and large, I have to say that my own experience tends to support that 'joke' since I have rarely come across a Scot who actualy supports the England team in tournaments, yet I have regularly come across Englishmen who directly support Scotland. The contrast between the two has been very stark at times. It's up to you whether you wish to continue a debate, but I don't seee why somebody taking a different view from yours should somehow provide a justification for Scottish independence. Strikes me as the spolit child having a tantrum because he doesn't like what he's being told. Remarkably like Alex Salmond - you'll be using the 'B' word next.

Amusing maybe, but contains a very nasty message concerning the Scots views of the English.

Looks like my prediction is coming good - 1-0 at half time!! And Rooney missed a header from all of a yard out. Why we play this useless clown I have no idea. Oh well, the clown got a goal, but a fat lot of good that was. Listening to the comments afterwards, I was struck by how deluded most of the speakers are about England and their performance. They just don't seem to get it that England are a poor team, with few real skills and little idea how to play the game to win. The passing was slow and often inaccurate, the build up ponderous, penetration when near the Uruguay penalty area was almost non-existent, and when any kind of chance presented, the strikers failed comprehensively to strike. All the way through I could see exactly how this game was going to end. England were never going to win it and were obviously going to lose, and so they have - again, they haven't failed to disappoint. Even now the commentators are going on about how its still possible to qualify - what planet are they on? Do they seriously expect England to beat Costa Rica - oh please!! Its all over and everybody with any sense knows that.

Looks like my prediction is coming good - 1-0 at half time!! And Rooney missed a header from all of a yard out. Why we play this useless clown I have no idea.

I think there are too many delusions here, and on other sites, about England's capabilities. Looked at objectively, the England defence was relatively poor at times - Italy had several good opportunities and even struck the bar in the last few minutes with Joe Hart stationery, just watching. A score of 3:1 or 4:1 wouldn't have flattered them. Many people are also making much of England's attack, but the truth is that England rarely got anywhere near close enough to the goal to threaten to score (leaving aside the actual goal) and were reduced to long range shots, which were no problem for the Italian goalkeeper. That might have been OK, but they rarely got the shot on target - shots mostly missed by a mile or went over the bar. Gerrard is a master at kicking a free kick over the bar. Yes, Sterling and others were skillful, but they pretty much always ran into an Italian and lost the ball. Certainly, they never looked to seriously threaten the Italian defence, which dealt with them clinically and efficiently. Then there's Rooney, who, yes, made the goal scored, but apart from that was a waste of space and always has been in an England shirt. God knows why the managers always play him - I don't buy the argument that he can turn a game in an instant of genius. Maybe, but those flashes are so infrequent that waiting for one to occur and to do so at the right time is a pipedream. Better to put a genuine player on the pitch, who at least might actually try to score. In defence of this view of Rooney, I would just point to the corner that he managed to blast into the crowd. I've never seen a player ever manage that, even at schoolboy level. To do so in a world cup game was pathetic. By contrast England's defence was poor - Baines was having terrible trouble whenever Italy attacked down that side of the pitch. Then there's England's corner taking idiocy. Consistently, they aimed for the far post, usually over kicked the ball, but either way there was nobody there to pick up the ball. What's the point of aiming for a spot where there are no players? Seems ridiculous to me. So, looking at them, even with changes, I don't find much to suggest that they will fare any better against Uruguay next week. Suarez will no doubt play and that will create havoc for England's poor defence. England's attack will still falter as soon as they've got sight of goal, and Uruguay will be stung by the defeat to Costa Rica, so I don't believe they will play anywhere like they did in their first match. By contrast England are unable to improve and will be on their nerves, knowing that a lost match will be the end for them. I see a low scoring game, with England maybe getting a draw if they are lucky, but more likely going down 1-0. As for Costa Rica, if they play as they did the other day, then England will have no chance against them.

Expectations were low this time around, so its good to see England living down to their reputation. Nothing like succeeding at failure. Can't see them getting ahead of Uruguay or Costa Rica. Best they can hope for would be a draw maybe against Uruguay if they are lucky.

While we're on the subject of fakes, what do we think of this 1735 crown? Leaving aside the ugly stain, there's something about the surfaces of the kings bust that looks almost cast to me, although overall the coin looks reasonable. Edge inscription looks very uneven too. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111379136480?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Clearly, he's the model and he's showing off.

But then only for the Scots when they vote 'yes.'