Talk:Economic history of Britain

"The pound has continued to fluctuate however, reaching a low against the dollar in 2001 (to a rate of $1.37 per £1), but rising again in 2004/2005 to a rate of approximately $1.80 per £1. Against the Euro, the pound has become steady at a rate of approximately €1.45 per £1."

That means it's the dollar that has flucuated against the pound and not the pound itself if the rate has been steady against the euro!

This article is far too focused on overseas trade and imperialism. - SimonP 23:18, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems astonishing to me that an article on the economic history of Great Britain should make no mention of the changes in trade patterns between Scotland and England, the two major components of the island. In particular the trade embargoes of the 17th century, the Darien disaster, and the political/economic union of 1707 had major effects on the British economy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:44, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Tin

Can someone explain exactly how Tin gave it's name to the country? Not sure I follow AndrewMcQ 19:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed it makes very little sense -- SCRA5071

err... Bri-tin? I don't really get it either. Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't exactly 'tin' is it? It's more 'tayne'. So I wouldn't exactly see britain being named after a can o' bean as true :-) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signt added by 172.212.82.226 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When referrering to the 'Age of Navigation', perhaps this article is referring to the Age of Discovery?

I have started to rewrite the section on the Industrial Revolution, and will add sources later.--Train guard 10:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup/Splitting

I think much of the imperial elements to the latter end of the article should be moved to their own page, and linked to/summarised from the main Economic history of Britain page. There also seems to be a large amount of PoV and unreferenced statements. Johnwalton 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - to splitting "Economy of the British Empire". However there may be scope for a separate article on that topic that gives a balanced view of the economic relationships within the empire as a whole, rather than just the British aspect of it.
Probably not - to splitting "Economy of Britain during the Industrial Revolution" - how would you define when to begin and end the article, in relation to the rest of the economic history of Britain?
Probably yes - to splitting "Modern economic history of Britain". I can see some merit in this. The main question would be whether to start this after WWI - when the empire started to slide and the country had to start standing on it's own feet, plus it would then include the Great Depression and leaving the Gold Standard (events which still have some ressonance today) - or after WWII. I'd probably opt for WWI as the demarcation line.

Purpose

Is this article supposed to be about the United Kingdom, Great Britain, or the British Isles? Bastin8 11:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe more than half of this article, as it now stands, outlines the economic history of the United Kingdom.

I think that this article should highlight only the economic history of Britain when that region was a country in its own right. The period of time we're talking about would be after the amalgamation of Scotland and England under the throne of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), and up until the inclusion of Ireland into the economy. I'm not sure how long that period is.. presumably pretty short (1707 until 1801?.. if that).

This article should be renamed Economic history of the United Kingdom as per Wikipedia convention of Foo by country, and the relevent information be split into a new Economic history of Britain article. In other words, copy the info from this to a new article (Economic history of the UK) and keep only the relevent info in this one. --Mal 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and imperialism

This article has much too great an emphasis on imperialism and slave trade. Sugar and tobacco from the slave colonies were not the main driving force of British economic growth. Even if you count every slave as a consumer, the population of all colonies put together was much smaller than that of the mother country. However statistics on English overseas trade are readily available and those on most sectors of the home economy are not. The extent to which the home economy grew is thus not apparent.

The emphasis of the article on these factors depends on the views of many years ago. It does not reflect the content of recent text books on early modern and industrial revolution England (or Britain). Peterkingiron 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Depression

In the section on the Great Depression, someone had referred to Germany and hyperinflation. I'm a history teacher and I see this error ALL THE TIME. It's driving me mad. Hyperinflation occured in Germany in the early 20s, brought about partly by the government's economic policy during WW1 and partly through other factors such as reparations. It ended with the introduction of the Rentenmark in November 1923 -6 years before the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. All of this is on wiki, could you check before getting your history muddled up. I've deleted the reference to hyperinflation now.

Lawson Boom

How can this article not contain information on the Lawson Boom? --Tiresais 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for moving. --Dijxtra 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Economic history of Britain → Economic history of the United Kingdom – I believe more than half of this article, as it now stands, outlines the economic history of the United Kingdom.

I think that this article should highlight only the economic history of Britain when that region was a country in its own right. The period of time we're talking about would be after the amalgamation of Scotland and England under the throne of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), and up until the inclusion of Ireland into the economy. I'm not sure how long that period is.. presumably pretty short (1707 until 1801?.. if that).

This article should be renamed Economic history of the United Kingdom as per Wikipedia convention of Foo by country, and the relevent information be split into a new Economic history of Britain article. In other words, copy the info from this to a new article (Economic history of the UK) and keep only the relevent info in this one. Mal 12:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support, but with extraneous information being moved to create new 'Economic history of the British Isles' article (per History of the British Isles). Bastin 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Support as per Bastin above (asuming economic history of the region warrants another article). --Mal 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the present name unless Ireland is included after the passage of the Act of Union regarding Ireland. Passer-by 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move; Abstain on split: This is a split... See discussion section. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Even by nom's suggestion, this is an article split request, not an article move request. The non-Britain parts of the article can be cut/pasted over the top of the current Economic history of the United Kingdom redirect. Splits do not need admin assistance unless a compelling reason is given to move the edit history for this article to the U.K. article. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct Wknight94. I am not aware of a page in wikipedia to propose a split though, so I put it on one I do know: the move request page. I think you should change your vote to support to highlight the fact that you support my proposal basically as written.

I think the split should be done as soon as possible. --Mal 11:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote above is to do a move which would move the entire edit history. I'm opposed to that unless someone can give a good reason. As far as the content being split, I'm not familiar enough with the topics involved to say whether that's a good idea. As far as proposing a split, this is a fine place to do it but WP:RM is a place to do administrative page and edit history moves. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I re-word the proposal and inform the current voters of the change, would you support the proposal Wknight94? --Mal 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a split doesn't need a vote at all. Just do it. Why do you need a move? I'm not opposing the split - go ahead. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request relisted for no consensus. --Dijxtra 08:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The request didn't reach consensus, so it failed. --Dijxtra 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article, despite being broad in exapnse, should not be divided, as it provides easy-to-access information that could be hard to connect were it in separate articles.

1973-4 stock market crash

Neither this article nor anywhere else I can see from a bit of a search of Wikipedia says anything about the 1973-4 UK stock market crash, e.g. what it was all about. Perhaps someone should add it to this article. Ben Finn 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know what it is... Maybe you could add it? (you probably don't because you asked) Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crash was worldwide, although it affected the UK more than it did the other (future) G7 economies. I'll create a proper article about it tomorrow. Bastin 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now created. It's stubby, but at least it exists: Stock market crash of 1973–4. Bastin 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

splitting template

Is putting the template on every section really necessary? Why not just subst the template and modify it to suit the need? Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]