Talk:Economic history of Britain

message: Can someone explain exactly how Tin gave it's name to the country? Not sure I follow AndrewMcQ 19:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed it makes very little sense -- SCRA5071
err... Bri-tin? I don't really get it either. Rahk E✘ Who Is  22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tin 

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup/Splitting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slavery and imperialism 

message: How can this article not contain information on the Lawson Boom? --Tiresais 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lawson Boom

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: If you know what it is... Maybe you could add it? (you probably don't because you asked) Rahk E✘ Who Is  22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now created.  It's stubby, but at least it exists: Stock market crash of 1973–4. Bastin 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1973-4 stock market crash

message: Is putting the template on every section really necessary? Why not just subst the template and modify it to suit the need? Rahk E✘ Who Is  23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: splitting template