DaveG38

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.

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.

Here's a pic of the halfpenny.

Although I have a quite a few 'nice' early milled coins, I don't really have many which have come out of well known collections. The one exception is my 1689 halfpenny which is the Nicholson specimen. I'm quite interested in tracing its history, but all I have found so far is that it was sold to Nicholson from the Spink Numismatic Circular from December 1986 and is number 8485. Does anybody have a copy of the circular and can they let me know what it says about my coin - alternatively a scan of the relevant page would be equally helpful? Thanks in advance. Dave G38

Many thanks for this. Pity it doesn't say anything else about its history - I'll have to consider where else to look for it. Interesting that it has suffered from grade inflation in the meantime, as Colin Cooke rated it as 'strictly fine but probably good very fine for issue.' Personally, I'd say that Spinks were nearer the grade.

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?