The Bank of England should be renamed to make clear it covers Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well, a Labour peer has said.
Lord Harrison said it would be an "inclusive" act in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum and suggested calling it the Bank of England and the United Kingdom.
But his claims met with widespread disagreement across the House of Lords.
Lord Harrison said at question time in the Lords: "Given the particular saliency of the currency issue in the recent Scottish referendum, wouldn't it be a wise act and an inexpensive and an inclusive act to extend the title of Britain's central bank to that of the Bank of England of the United Kingdom?
"It would thereby properly recognise the reach and relevance to all four nations of the United Kingdom of our own central bank."
Lord Newby, replying for the Government, rejected the proposal.
"Having begun life in 1694 as a commercial bank, the Bank of England predates the formation of the United Kingdom itself," he said.
"Of course the bank's role is not limited to England and it acts as the central bank for the whole of the UK.
"However to change its name would now represent a break from over 300 years worth of history and the prestige which it carries as a global brand."
Lord Newby said it was a notable feature of the referendum campaign that First Minister Alex Salmond had been keen to keep the "comfort blanket" of the Bank.
"As far as I'm aware, he never suggested that its name should change," he said.
Labour's Lord Peston, a retired professor of economics, said changing the name would be "economically very damaging".
Lord Davies of Oldham, for Labour, said his party was in favour of keeping the current name.
Liberal Democrat Lord Shutt of Greetland said if there was to be a change Bank of Britain would be "more solid, simple and straightforward".
Labour's Lord McFall of Alcluith said: "If it's good enough for Alex Salmond as the Bank of England, it's good enough for the rest of us."
But Lord Newby replied: "I'm not sure that's a general principle we would wish to apply more widely."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article