News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Should symbols for the four nations be mandatory on every UK circulation series?

Started by <k>, October 22, 2023, 11:53:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should symbols for the four nations be mandatory on every UK circulation series?

Yes
5 (45.5%)
No
5 (45.5%)
Don't know
1 (9.1%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 06, 2023, 10:53:02 AM

augsburger

Personally I don't really care what the design is, as long as it's good.

I participated in the "Britishness" £1 coin design competition and the outcome was disappointingly boring and predictable.

Figleaf

An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

augsburger

Mine weren't that good. I was trying to do something different but looking back on them, I wouldn't have wanted them to win.

I had trouble with the idea of what "Britishness" is. Really, you look at it and you end up doing flowers and things because there's not much that can visually say "this is the United Kingdom" other than simple symbolism.

FosseWay

For as long as we've got the king/queen on the other side, I don't see that the "variable" design has to say "Britishness" at all. This kind of precondition in design briefs and during competitions may explain why, until the latest series, UK coins have been so immutably heraldry-based. 

For me, there's a difference between a design that says "Britishness" (whatever that may be) and a design that portrays something that happens to be British (plant, animal, person, building, whatever). It's sensible for the coins of a country to relate to the geography, flora, fauna, population, culture and achievements of that country, of course. But I don't think that when people see, say, a squirrel or a puffin they immediately think "Britishness". It's the insistence on that link that has held back UK coin design - "definitives", anyway - for so long.

Offa

As a former member of her majesty's armed forces my joint oath was to serve queen and country, the country was defined as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Any representation of the country must include the four constituent countries that make up the union.
Member British numismatic society

<k>

Quote from: Offa on October 25, 2023, 11:40:07 AMthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Well, that's only two  countries, isn't it?  ;)

It's a strange situation where we have potentially four different nations competing in sports events.

I don't know of any other country that does that.

Can Guernsey in theory compete in the football World Cup?
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

augsburger

When I taught in Austria I used to do a think about the UK.

How many national football teams does the UK have? Four
How many national rugby teams does the UK have? Three (kind of, Northern Ireland play as Ireland so I don't include it)
How many national cricket teams does the UK have? Two (Scotland and England-and-Wales)
How many Olympic teams does the UK have? One.

Gibraltar is a part of the UK, and also has a football team, so now I'd guess the first answer is five, so I could put another sport in for four and do 5-1.

The British Virgin Islands are also a part of the UK, and they have a very unsuccessful team, only three are worse. The Turks and Caicos Islands have a team, as are the Caymen Islands, and Monserrat. I think that might be it. So that's nine national teams, in reality, from the country of the United Kingdom.

HOWEVER, from a coin point of view, some of them use other currencies, like Monserrat which uses the East Caribbean Dollar, and even if they used the UK pound I'd doubt anyone would put anything from these small places on their coins.

And having tried to design something with "Britishness" and seeing the winning coin, I agree that "Britishness" should not be a condition for coinage. I like the idea of just having a theme and going with it, as long as it looks good.

Figleaf

International law distinguishes federations and confederations*. Simply put, in a federation, the central government has delegated significant sovereign power to its constituent parts, while in a confederation, the states have delegated significant sovereign power to a central government.

In practice, the distinction is not sharp, as in different countries and times, power shifted to and fro. Some examples of federations: the Northern US states in the US civil war, the US at present, Australia, Germany (Bundesstaat). Confederations are scarcer: the Southern US states in the US civil war, the US at the time of the Continental congresses, the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, the Holy Roman empire, the European Union (though it can be argued that it is only an international organisation, since it has no military and only weak foreign policy power).

The question is how to classify the four UK nations (in the sense of coherent populations). I will concentrate on Scotland. Until 1707, England had a confederation relation with Scotland (one crown, two parliaments). One of the main purposes the Act of the Union was to create a single parliament in London, which was also the seat of the king. Arguably, that treaty changed the confederation into a federation.

This situation was changed again by devolution. However, since the devolved power came from the parliament in Westminster, the UK remained a federation. Scotland begat neither a military nor foreign policy power. It seemed to have the right to withdraw unilaterally from the federation, but the UK supreme court put an end to that idea. In other words, with devolution, the UK shifted a bit towards being a confederation, but not enough to become one.

If the UK still is a federation, there is no need to acknowledge the constituent parts on its coins, unless it wants to. Compare with the EU, where each member-state must put a distinguishing mark on the coins.

As for sports, who cares? They are basically organised by private organisation with private contracts. Such contracts have no consequences for the status of nations and states. If one day, FIFA agrees that Western Patagonia and Eastern Patagonia can field their own soccer teams, that does not infringe on the sovereign rights of Argentina and Chile. FIFA may look slightly ridiculous, but that is their own responsibility.

Peter

* and of course unitary states, such as France, but they are not an issue in this discussion.
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

FosseWay

Quote from: Figleaf on October 26, 2023, 11:10:21 AMIf the UK still is a federation, there is no need to acknowledge the constituent parts on its coins, unless it wants to. Compare with the EU, where each member-state must put a distinguishing mark on the coins.
I agree with this analysis as it concerns the UK. But I would argue that euro-issuing EU states must put a distinguishing mark on its coins only because it has been decided by the member states that that should happen. The EU could mandate that all euro coins are the same across the Union and it wouldn't affect the constitutional status of the EU. Equally the UK or, in an extreme case, the US could mandate in its constitution that every state must issue its own coin variants.

Figleaf

Correct, but IIRC (a big IF!), the distinguishing mark is compulsory according to EU rules. You see a similar thing happening in other currency unions, e.g. the CFA franc.

Speculating here, but it is possible that both in a federation and a confederation, the constituent parts are jealous of their rights vis-a-vis the centre, but in a confederation, they can do more about preserving them and they leave no opportunity unused.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

<k>

Quote from: Figleaf on October 26, 2023, 03:45:19 PMCorrect, but IIRC (a big IF!), the distinguishing mark is compulsory according to EU rules. You see a similar thing happening in other currency unions, e.g. the CFA franc.

That's no longer the case, apparently.

Quote from: <k> on June 30, 2014, 04:35:09 PMAt some point in time, the coins of the Central African franc incorporated a letter to indicate their country of issue:

Cameroon - E
Central African Republic - B
Chad - A
Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) - C
Equatorial Guinea   
Gabon - D

Is that system still ongoing, and why did Equatorial Guinea not have a letter assigned to it?

Quote from: Pabitra on July 01, 2014, 09:04:17 AMNo longer.
It was just a convenient alphabetic allotment without any order.
Later, making that as a mark was causing additional cost so abandoned, perhaps at the desire of Paris mint.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.