Talk:Bank of Scotland/Archives/2013

Central Bank

The Bank of Scotland was not the central bank of Scotland prior to the Union. See the bank's own account of its history at [1]. It was clearly set up as a public and commerical bank. It did not offer any central bank functions. Astrotrain 21:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

First sentence of that link you provide: for the Carrying on and Managing of a Publick Bank. A public bank, not a private one. The Bank of England was established the previous year on similarly old-fashioned terms (the term "Central Bank" not then existing). The Bank of Scotland in the first years of its existence is directly analagous to the status of the Bank of England, which no-one ever questions being a central bank.--Mais oui! 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Bank of England was set up to provide financing for the English government, and to manage the national debt. The Bank of Scotland was established for commerical purposes and to foster trade with the English. The article already states its history clearly in that respect. No other sources back up your view that the Bank was the Scottish central bank. Astrotrain 17:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland are exactly analagous during the period 1695-1707. Many sources cite the analogy. Why should the Bank of England be regarded as the central bank of the Kingdom of England, but the Bank of Scotland not be regarded as the central bank of the Kingdom of Scotland. Where are the substantive differences?--Mais oui! 19:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You will have to provide some sources to back up this claim. Wikipeida is not a place for original research. Looking at the BoS's own history, it states it was set up for commerical purposes, Bank of Scotland was established by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland on 17th July 1695 'for the Carrying on and Managing of a Publick Bank'. It is the only bank ever to be founded by such an Act and the only commercial institution created by the Scots Parliament which is still in existence. It is also unique in being the oldest surviving UK clearing bank founded specifically to make a business of banking..

The Bank of England was set up to finance the national debt. Astrotrain 19:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"... granted the bank a monopoly on banking in Scotland...": ie a state monopoly: ie a central bank.--Mais oui! 19:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• That does not make it a central bank. Astrotrain 19:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed? Central bank: "Functions of a central bank: 1. monopoly on the issue of banknotes".--Mais oui! 20:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to you both, neither of you has really provided much in the way of external evidence. Surely some of that would settle the matter far more effectively than bickering? (Sorry for the preachiness.) Doops | talk 05:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Mais Oui, I have no con arguments to offer; but I do question two of your pro arguments: 1) surely "public" bank just means not private? 2) A control on banknote printing is critical in the modern era of floated currency, since that's how the money supply is regulated. But back in the day when each banknote was backed by specie, maybe it wasn't such a big deal? Doops | talk 05:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Neither the Bank of Scotland, or anyone else, describe the bank as the "central bank of the Kingdom of Scotland". The bank's own history states they were set up for the purposes of promoting trade ie a commerical bank. If they were a "central bank", then it would be stated in the bank's own account of their history- I don't think they would miss something as important as that. I have asked Mais_oui to provide evidence that the Bank of Scotland was a central bank, but he refuses. His reverts state that users should discuss their reasons on the talk page, even though I have contacted him directly on here, and on his talk page. If Mais_oui cannot provide any evidence that the Bank was a central bank it must be removed. Astrotrain 10:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am very glad to see that you are still here Astrotrain. I had rather feared that your recent revert frenzy may have resulted in (another) ban.

"... for the purposes of promoting trade... " Precisely! Do not overlook the fact that this period (1695-1707) was the height of mercantilism. "Promoting trade" was very much the business of the state, and state-sancioned agents, certainly not of the private sector. (Times have not really changed so much.)

"... A control on banknote printing is critical in the modern era of floated currency, since that's how the money supply is regulated. But back in the day when each banknote was backed by specie, maybe it wasn't such a big deal?" Mmmm... you over-rate the integrity of politicians. The "control of banknote printing" has always been absolutely critical for politicians, even in the good old days when we had real money. Why on earth do you think that the Bank of Scotland needed to be incorporated by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland? Because they were committed agents of the state. A state monopoly. A state company. The sole issuer of banknotes: a central bank.--Mais oui! 18:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In those days, note issuing was considered an indispensible part of the function of a bank. You are attempting to fit a twentieth century concept to a seventeenth century organisation. "The Bank of Scotland was not involved, as was the Bank of England right from its commencement, in acting as the the major holder and manager of the national debt." "A History of Money: From ancient times to the present day", p. 273, Prof. Glyn Davies, University of Wales Press, 1994 ISBN 0708313515. Quite simply, you are wrong in your assertion. -- Arwel (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• All this is your own POV. You have not yet provided any external evidence that the Bank of Scotland was a central bank. It did not provide government finance, which was the main function of central banks in those days (eg the Bank of England). And the Bank has never been owned by the state, it has always been a private company. Astrotrain 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui: lots of corporations were formed or chartered by legislatures, especially back in the day; that doesn't prove anything. Astrotrain: the Bank of England wasn't owned by the state until the 20th century. Doops | talk 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

ridiculous

OK, to end this ridiculous situation I'll try to write a compromise version. Unfortunately, it will violate the no original research policy, since it will say "some say..." and the some will refer to wikipedia editors, not the public at large. But that's better than letting this preposterous little dispute go on. Once again, though: the better way to resolve things is with evidence. Doops | talk 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's even worse. Either it was or it wasn't a central bank, and sticking in this fudge which really pleases no one is the worst kind of compromise, which just makes wikipedia look bad. I think the burden of proof should be to prove that it was a central bank, otherwise leave it out altogether. Maccoinnich 13:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Doops compromise wording is actually very good and clear. Many sources equate the BoE and BoS of this period, thus implying that the BoS was also a central bank. The difference of interpretation should be made explicit in the article, and not shuffled off under the carpet. Wikipedia is not here to represent "official" versions of history (or official versions of anything else)., but to attempt to present the truth. The truth is that many writers and readers over the centuries have understood the BoS and BoE to be equivalent institutions from the outset. If they are not, we deserve a cogent disposition of the difference of interpretation in the article. Doops' edit is a good start.--Mais oui! 13:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Many sources — e.g.? Doops | talk 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, in the absence of any sources regarding the central bank claim, it will have to be removed. I have replaced it with a statement that the Bank of Scotland remains the only commerical institution created by the Parliament of Scotland that remains in existence. Astrotrain 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

The edit war being perpetuated by User:Astrotrain is extremely counterproductive. It is a tactic that he has repeated time and time again, even resulting in a recent ban. I urge other editors not to tolerate this abusive behaviour. How on earth are we to build on Doops initiative to build a consensus when Astrotrain has now embarked on repeated reverts of the compromise wording?--Mais oui! 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I really think the whole claim is better left out unless you can provide some evidence - ie a reputable book on the history of banking/scotland/banking in scotland or whatever. Maccoinnich 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I repeat the citation I gave above, which Mais oui! has not seen fit to respond to: "The Bank of Scotland was not involved, as was the Bank of England right from its commencement, in acting as the the major holder and manager of the national debt." "A History of Money: From ancient times to the present day", p. 273, Prof. Glyn Davies, University of Wales Press, 1994 ISBN 0708313515. Professor Davies is a very highly regarded economist and historian of money, economic advisor to the Julian Hodge Bank, chief economic advisor to the Secretary of State for Wales, Professor of Banking and Finance at the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology for 15 years, Emeritus Professor of the University of Wales, and if he doesn't consider the Bank of Scotland to have been a central bank then you can be sure it wasn't. -- Arwel (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had to revert Mais_oui! again on this issue. Thanks for providing your source Arwel, it is clear from Professor Davies' work, and the Bank of Scotland themselves, that they were never a central bank. With all the evidence against, the claim will be staying out. Astrotrain 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui appears to be wrong, and should certainly desist from trying to edit his view into the article unless he provides supporting evidence (and preferably discusses it here first). The only thing central bankish about the BoS was an initial monopoly on public banking, meaning no-one else was permitted to issue banknotes etc. It did not lend to government, was not controlled by it, and did not control the money supply as a whole. I've added an explicit comparison with the Bank of England. Rd232 ^talk 23:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work Rd232, the first paragraph looks much better now. Astrotrain 18:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Astrobrain. Please stop deleting the Gaelic. Since no one reads the Gaelic wikipedia the only place worth pushing Gaelic is here. Please stop giving us Gaelic fans grief.

84.135.197.20 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bank of Wales

If I remember right, didn't the Bank of Scotland buy a bank called the Bank of Wales? I remember as a child a bank in the Swansea area when I went on a visit there, and there was a sign on a building with "Bank of Wales - part of the Bank of Scotland" or something, though I have tried to search for evidence of this, with great difficulty. Amlder20 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you are correct. It has since been renamed Bank of Scotland tho. I belive it specialised in business banking. Astrotrain 01:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it still based in Wales? or has it gone from? Amlder20 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Caledonian Bank

One of the banks mentioned in HBoS's family tree (see the "history" link, in the external links in the article) is the Caledonian Bank. The official history refers only to the original bank, up until its merger with the BoS in the early 20th Century. But in the early 1990s there was a branch of the Caledonian in St. Andrew Square in Edinburgh, and just for the novelty of it, I had an account with them. It seemed to be a bit of an experiment in branding for business banking. Clearly it was quite small-scale: my cheque book showed an unusual 4-digit account number rather than the usual 8! A few of their documents had BoS branding on them, so the excercise was incomplete, and the connection sure. But I have no documentation relating to it now. Does anybody have anything we could refer to, to allow for a mention of this, and to give an explanation of what they were up to? – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bank of Scotland Coat of Arms.jpg

Image:Bank of Scotland Coat of Arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just told that were I to edit the BOS page to include information about "unfair charges". (I was complaining on the phone about £105 of charges)I would be liable. Can anyone answer me, liable for what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthpwilliams (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

The link to

"rankofscotland.co.uk A website dedicated to those who have complaints with Bank of Scotland."

appears to be dead. This is a pity, as it would IMO be a good idea to have a pointer to a site performing such a function. It seems that banks step in pretty quickly to snap up or close down the standard xxxxsucks.com domains - though not as fast as the squatters who grab these domains for even tackier purposes. An example.

(I'll admit a personal bias here, but I think large companies with gigantic customer bases and a significant percentage of unhappy customers jolly well should have fleas upon their backs to bite 'em. That some such companies exist at all is a sad comment on consumer powerlessness.) --Cdavis999 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)