I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.
Give it 5 years.
Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
Cameron's case is more extreme. He has no credibility with the Brexiteers, whom he belittled throughout the Referendum process. And Remainers believe that he has inflicted the greatest calamity on this country in 70/700 years (delete as appropriate), just in order to play politics within the Conservative Party.
The number of people who mourn his having got the EU badly wrong - and so having to leave the stage - is significant. The number of people who would actually want him back at the heart of Government is insignificant.
I don't think Cameron could make a come back for quite some time for those reasons, 5 years was just thrown in at random - frankly it might take longer, if he is even interested. And I do think having jumped ship makes it so much more harder, since he would want to come back in at the Cabinet table, and why should people accept that when he wasn't even prepared to stick around in some tough times.
I just don't have a problem in principle with a former PM, even ones who did poorly and would have that thrown in their face, from returning or sticking around. Some people might make very good Ministers even if they were bad PMs.
An unfortunate convention has begun to develop that former Prime Ministers sod off to make money, or brood in isolation. It shows a certain lack of respect to contributing to the political process in any way other than as Prime Minister.
I have more respect for those failed leaders of the opposition, such as Hague, IDS and Miliband, who stuck around for a bit and continued to contribute.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
I will put it on the list. But he sounds like a very good science teacher and communicator rather than an innovative scientist. No shame in that - in fact, a very good thing - but it seems to me that there are better claims for honour from dead scientists.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
His work on rationality, humanism, and the public understanding of science (and in particular evolution) should be celebrated. I agree his contribution in pure science was not stellar - but it was by no means poor.
He has become a rather cantankerous old soul, but I'd say (a) he's earned it, and (b) that shouldn't detract from the past.
He also contributed to evolutionary biology, showing how genes may be the main method of natural selection rather than what worked for Ugg the Caveman so he could pass his genes to Ugg Minor...
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
By many accounts he’s very unpleasant and self opinionated
Indeed. For a scientist he seems remarkably incurious about competing opinions and dismissive of rational counter arguments. Not just about theism, but pretty much everything. Have often thought the God Delusion he refers to is the delusion that the word of Dawkins is Gospel. Vox Dawkins vox dei.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
I will put it on the list. But he sounds like a very good science teacher and communicator rather than an innovative scientist. No shame in that - in fact, a very good thing - but it seems to me that there are better claims for honour from dead scientists.
I suspect that @Anazina is less interested in Dawkins the scientist than Dawkins the Scourge of God tbh.
In which spirit, if you really must have a famous proselytising atheist who isn't disqualified by still breathing, I'd suggest Christopher Hitchens.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
I decided in the end to nominate Maxwell on that basis. Much as I would be happy to see Franklin, or Turing, or Lovelace or many other scientists on the note I really think Maxwell is in a different league.
Shakespeare and Dickens were rightly on a note before Austen. So Maxwell should be on a note, alongside Newton, Darwin and Faraday, before any other scientist.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
I will put it on the list. But he sounds like a very good science teacher and communicator rather than an innovative scientist. No shame in that - in fact, a very good thing - but it seems to me that there are better claims for honour from dead scientists.
For a casual read The Greatest Show on Earth is probably the better. After reading it you will doubt the sanity of anyone who advocates "Intelligent Design" or Creationism.
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
IMO Cameron only committed himself to a referendum because he thought he would be in another coalition after 2015 and he would be "forced" to drop the idea by his coalition partners. I don't think he either wanted or expected to actually have to hold the vote. But rather than challenge the headbangers in his party he took refuge in fancy political footwork and reckless commitments which put the very future of the UK at risk. History will not be kind to him.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Surely we've all missed the obvious choice for the banknote - and I think we can make an exception to the 'must be dead rule' for one of England's greatest proponents of free speech, democracy and all round top bloke...
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
IMO Cameron only committed himself to a referendum because he thought he would be in another coalition after 2015 and he would be "forced" to drop the idea by his coalition partners. I don't think he either wanted or expected to actually have to hold the vote. But rather than challenge the headbangers in his party he took refuge in fancy political footwork and reckless commitments which put the very future of the UK at risk. History will not be kind to him.
What a shame that the voters finally had a chance to decide on the matter.
Surely we've all missed the obvious choice for the banknote - and I think we can make an exception to the 'must be dead rule' for one of England's greatest proponents of free speech, democracy and all round top bloke...
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
- The US has a Trump presidency. - Italy has a Lega-M5S government. - France had Le Pen polling 40%+ against several serious candidates in head-to-heads in the presidential race. - Austria came within a fraction of a Freedom Party president.
You certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that UKIP couldn't have won an election here under certain circumstances, particularly given that they won the 2014 Euros and how many people eventually did vote for Brexit.
But the more likely route is that had Cameron not offered the referendum policy, Miliband would have won in 2015 (or at least, become PM, on a weak mandate and reliant on SNP support), and that Cameron would have been replaced by Boris who did then include a Brexit referendum in his leadership pitch. Whether or not Boris would have lasted as LotO, the pledge would then have proven impossible to drop.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
[snip]
As a rule of thumb, the BoE don't choose people who've been dead less than 100 years (excluding the monarch). I think there've only been three exceptions. There haven't been any at all featured within 50 years of their death.
Surely we've all missed the obvious choice for the banknote - and I think we can make an exception to the 'must be dead rule' for one of England's greatest proponents of free speech, democracy and all round top bloke...
I give you Piers Morgan
Robert Maxwell is already dead, and he's more likable than Morgan.
Surely we've all missed the obvious choice for the banknote - and I think we can make an exception to the 'must be dead rule' for one of England's greatest proponents of free speech, democracy and all round top bloke...
I give you Piers Morgan
Robert Maxwell is already dead, and he's more likable than Morgan.
It would have to be a big note to get Maxwell on... besides I thought he had most of the UK's banknotes stashed away somewhere?
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
- The US has a Trump presidency. - Italy has a Lega-M5S government. - France had Le Pen polling 40%+ against several serious candidates in head-to-heads in the presidential race. - Austria came within a fraction of a Freedom Party president.
You certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that UKIP couldn't have won an election here under certain circumstances, particularly given that they won the 2014 Euros and how many people eventually did vote for Brexit.
But the more likely route is that had Cameron not offered the referendum policy, Miliband would have won in 2015 (or at least, become PM, on a weak mandate and reliant on SNP support), and that Cameron would have been replaced by Boris who did then include a Brexit referendum in his leadership pitch. Whether or not Boris would have lasted as LotO, the pledge would then have proven impossible to drop.
I reckon the scenario that might have led to Ukip becoming serious contenders was Scotland voting for independence followed by the Tories and Labour having a collective meltdown about how to deal with it.
I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.
For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.
It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
Cameron was forced into a referendum. The bastards in his party had already destroyed several leaders, and the constant threats from many of his MPs to go over to Farage's UKIP threatened to destroy the party itself.
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
UKIP were a remarkably successful political party / pressure group. They would do anything to get a referendum on the EU, if not directly out. *If* the Conservative Party had split on Eurosceptic lines, then UKIP would have had a fair few seats in parliament and much more of a voice. I'm not saying they'd have formed a government (aside from being a minor partner in a coalition), but they'd have been able to apply massive pressure to both the rump Conservatives and Labour for a referendum.
We saw the pretty appalling behaviour of their MEPs in Brussels. You could expect the same from their MPs at Westminster.
An EU referendum was probably inevitable, in part because few people were trying to counter the EU's negative image in the minds of many.
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
Adam Smith, a Scot, is on the current twenty. No one is bothered.
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is either a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
You have said that they are "English notes". They are not "English notes".
I have corrected you on a simple & uncontroversial point.
The Bank of England has specifically asked for the public to vote for a "British scientist". It did not ask for "English scientist".
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is either a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
You have said that they are "English notes". They are not "English notes".
I have corrected you on a simple & uncontroversial point.
The Bank of England has specifically asked for the public to vote for a "British scientist". It did not ask for "English scientist".
These are notes issued by the Bank of England. Calling them English notes when they are issued by the Bank of England and where Scottish (and Northern Irish) notes exist is normal usage. But your derangement seems not to allow for normal English usage.
I fully expect you now to respond with a tirade about my patronising the Welsh. Because, well, it's the next thing that you can find to get aggrieved about.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
He's still alive. That rules him out surely?
It does, unless he really, really wants a shot at the honour...
Sad news, Paddy Ashdown is being treated for bladder cancer.
Ex-Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown is being treated for bladder cancer.
The former MP for Yeovil told Somerset Live that he had been diagnosed three weeks ago and while the outcome was "unpredictable" he had "every confidence" in the care he was getting at the Somerset town's hospital.
The ex-marine commando led the party between 1988 and 1999, during which it became a growing force in UK politics.
"I've fought a lot of battles in my life," he told the website.
"This time I am lucky enough to have the magnificent help of our local hospital, my friends and family, and that gives me great confidence".
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
He's still alive. That rules him out surely?
It does, unless he really, really wants a shot at the honour...
Well at least that way he'd get to find out if he was right!
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Nope. The idea that Dawkins is beginning from a religious position is utter, contemptible guff. He is starting from the only rational position and simply has the bollocks to argue his case firmly, unlike the raft of equivocators out there. Your existence is a miracle. Be happy!
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is either a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
You have said that they are "English notes". They are not "English notes".
I have corrected you on a simple & uncontroversial point.
The Bank of England has specifically asked for the public to vote for a "British scientist". It did not ask for "English scientist".
These are notes issued by the Bank of England. Calling them English notes when they are issued by the Bank of England and where Scottish (and Northern Irish) notes exist is normal usage. But your derangement seems not to allow for normal English usage.
I fully expect you now to respond with a tirade about my patronising the Welsh. Because, well, it's the next thing that you can find to get aggrieved about.
Something can be normal usage but patronising.
Anyhow, you are not correct. Normal usage is British bank notes:
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
He inspired a generation to get hands-on with science.
Second choice: Magnus Pyke
He was just the archetypal mad scientist.
Anyway, I'm just miffed that it will be a scientist, rather than an Engineer.
Or his fellow "Young Scientist of the Year" panelist, Sir George Porter.
My primary school was next door to Sir George's house. He had a gate put in his fence so every time we hoofed a ball into his garden we could just let ourselves in to collect it rather than constantly knocking on his door.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
He has participated in the development of the field of evolutionary biology - and perhaps more significantly, had a fair degree of success in promoting the public appreciation of science, back in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, not so much.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Nope. The idea that Dawkins is beginning from a religious position is utter, contemptible guff. He is starting from the only rational position and simply has the bollocks to argue his case firmly, unlike the raft of equivocators out there. Your existence is a miracle. Be happy!
*Scrumples up own, similar but less-well written response*
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Nope. The idea that Dawkins is beginning from a religious position is utter, contemptible guff. He is starting from the only rational position and simply has the bollocks to argue his case firmly, unlike the raft of other equivocators out there. Your existence is a miracle. Be happy!
I was at a dinner with Dawkins a few years ago. He ignored everyone at the dinner, except the youngest and by far the prettiest member of the dinner party, who received lavish attention.
Dawkins is good friend of his fellow atheist & science populariser Larry Krauss (now alas no longer permitted on to University campuses in the US after his little bit of trouble)
There is a reason why Dawkins won't be allowed near any banknotes (even racially pure English ones).
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Probably because of how integrated with England it is.
Anyway, who wants to be on the £50 when you could be on this:
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
His work on rationality, humanism, and the public understanding of science (and in particular evolution) should be celebrated. I agree his contribution in pure science was not stellar - but it was by no means poor.
He has become a rather cantankerous old soul, but I'd say (a) he's earned it, and (b) that shouldn't detract from the past.
He also contributed to evolutionary biology, showing how genes may be the main method of natural selection rather than what worked for Ugg the Caveman so he could pass his genes to Ugg Minor...
Indeed he is an eminent scholar in the world of evolutionary biology but, as this is PB, that is waved away. That he has become a 'cantankerous old soul' as @Anorak neatly puts it, is part of what commends him to banknote candidacy. I'd be professional cantankerous too, if so many of many colleagues were too shy or weak to take on organised superstition, despite the huge damage it does to the world and the way we live our lives.
We already celebrate rafts of religious people and born-into-it monarchs for no good reason. Let's celebrate a dissenting voice, one who has been at the vanguard of science and scepticism, without fear or favour, for the best part of half a century.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Probably because of how integrated with England it is.
Anyway, who wants to be on the £50 when you could be on this:
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Probably because of how integrated with England it is.
Anyway, who wants to be on the £50 when you could be on this:
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
He's still alive. That rules him out surely?
It does, unless he really, really wants a shot at the honour...
Well at least that way he'd get to find out if he was right!
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
To be honest, I can't offer a personal opinion on his biological work because I don't know enough. Those who do know about such things - e.g. E O Wilson - tend to dismiss his work. That wouldn't by itself be enough - it might just be professional jealousy. However, it is something to consider.
His philosophical work though is deeply flawed, and betrays a certain lack of intellectual rigour. For example, see here:
Based on the claim of one unidentifiable individual who may or may not be trusted he has built a whole chain of reasoning that just happens to support his predetermined conclusion. I don't think that would be accepted even on here, never mind in academia. (It is perhaps worth noting he subsequently denied having made this claim.)
And don't get me started on his claims about Stalin being a Christian, or if he was an atheist, one who didn't make any decisions based on his atheism...
Essentially Dawkins so far as I can judge is a superb writer and speaker who was rescued from a largely undistinguished career largely because of those traits. Well, good luck to him, but that doesn't make him a good scientist or a distinguished thinker.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
Ahem...
Just think what it would do for our relations with the Republic of Ireland, especially in these fraught Brexit times.
Not sure the Welsh or the Scots would be too keen either.
In the case of the Welsh, not only were Charles I's Welsh troops and their camp followers massacred by Cromwell's army after Naseby, but to add insult to injury, it was because Cromwell's men thought they were Irish!
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
More of a convention. And probably a good thing to avoid putting living celebrities on there.
Surely we've all missed the obvious choice for the banknote - and I think we can make an exception to the 'must be dead rule' for one of England's greatest proponents of free speech, democracy and all round top bloke...
I give you Piers Morgan
Do we have to kill him first so he can qualify?
Just asking....
That series with Piers Morgan on Killer Women - how come its never him they kill?
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
It's a pretty good way of avoiding milkshake ducks. Seems sensible, if you really have to have people on bank notes.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
He's still alive. That rules him out surely?
It does, unless he really, really wants a shot at the honour...
Well at least that way he'd get to find out if he was right!
On who should be on banknotes - our Brexit negotiators should concede the Irish Backstop - when the EU commits to put Nigel Farage on the 100 Euro note....
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
To be honest, I can't offer a personal opinion on his biological work because I don't know enough. Those who do know about such things - e.g. E O Wilson - tend to dismiss his work. That wouldn't by itself be enough - it might just be professional jealousy. However, it is something to consider.
His philosophical work though is deeply flawed, and betrays a certain lack of intellectual rigour. For example, see here:
Based on the claim of one unidentifiable individual who may or may not be trusted he has built a whole chain of reasoning that just happens to support his predetermined conclusion. I don't think that would be accepted even on here, never mind in academia. (It is perhaps worth noting he subsequently denied having made this claim.)
And don't get me started on his claims about Stalin being a Christian, or if he was an atheist, one who didn't make any decisions based on his atheism...
Essentially Dawkins so far as I can judge is a superb writer and speaker who was rescued from a largely undistinguished career largely because of those traits. Well, good luck to him, but that doesn't make him a good scientist or a distinguished thinker.
I don't consider him a philosopher at all; rather a not particularly effective public advocate for atheism.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
Ahem...
Just think what it would do for our relations with the Republic of Ireland, especially in these fraught Brexit times.
Not sure the Welsh or the Scots would be too keen either.
In the case of the Welsh, not only were Charles I's Welsh troops and their camp followers massacred by Cromwell's army after Naseby, but to add insult to injury, it was because Cromwell's men thought they were Irish!
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
Ahem...
Just think what it would do for our relations with the Republic of Ireland, especially in these fraught Brexit times.
Not sure the Welsh or the Scots would be too keen either.
In the case of the Welsh, not only were Charles I's Welsh troops and their camp followers massacred by Cromwell's army after Naseby, but to add insult to injury, it was because Cromwell's men thought they were Irish!
He was an absolute bloody vandal to boot, I say this as someone who used to live a few miles from Kenilworth castle.
On who should be on banknotes - our Brexit negotiators should concede the Irish Backstop - when the EU commits to put Nigel Farage on the 100 Euro note....
Can you imagine Euro notes with Juncker’s mug on them?
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Nope. The idea that Dawkins is beginning from a religious position is utter, contemptible guff. He is starting from the only rational position and simply has the bollocks to argue his case firmly, unlike the raft of other equivocators out there. Your existence is a miracle. Be happy!
I was at a dinner with Dawkins a few years ago. He ignored everyone at the dinner, except the youngest and by far the prettiest member of the dinner party, who received lavish attention.
Dawkins is good friend of his fellow atheist & science populariser Larry Krauss (now alas no longer permitted on to University campuses in the US after his little bit of trouble)
There is a reason why Dawkins won't be allowed near any banknotes (even racially pure English ones).
Yes the reason is that scientific rational humanism is considered the lowest of low in this country, yet religions of all stripes are pandered too. Or are you try to libel him through insinuation?
The pretty girl at the posh dinner might also have been a lot more interesting to chat to than you and the rest of the old bores there. Or are you assuming he was only interested in her looks?
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
- The US has a Trump presidency. - Italy has a Lega-M5S government. - France had Le Pen polling 40%+ against several serious candidates in head-to-heads in the presidential race. - Austria came within a fraction of a Freedom Party president.
You certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that UKIP couldn't have won an election here under certain circumstances, particularly given that they won the 2014 Euros and how many people eventually did vote for Brexit.
But the more likely route is that had Cameron not offered the referendum policy, Miliband would have won in 2015 (or at least, become PM, on a weak mandate and reliant on SNP support), and that Cameron would have been replaced by Boris who did then include a Brexit referendum in his leadership pitch. Whether or not Boris would have lasted as LotO, the pledge would then have proven impossible to drop.
I reckon the scenario that might have led to Ukip becoming serious contenders was Scotland voting for independence followed by the Tories and Labour having a collective meltdown about how to deal with it.
I did a thread on it back in Jan 2014. The main purpose - beside entertainment value - was to emphasise the precisely that point about how rapidly and radically the butterfly effect could take effect given the scale of events then in doubt, and how close the probabilities between the potential outcomes were.
I remember when Cameron gave a conference speech just after Labour were booing mentioning Tony Blair at those, and loudly exclaimed how the Tory party were proud of their ex-leaders.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
Agree about Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says (though not all), but the way he says it can be pretty unhelpful to his own arguments.
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Nope. The idea that Dawkins is beginning from a religious position is utter, contemptible guff. He is starting from the only rational position and simply has the bollocks to argue his case firmly, unlike the raft of other equivocators out there. Your existence is a miracle. Be happy!
I was at a dinner with Dawkins a few years ago. He ignored everyone at the dinner, except the youngest and by far the prettiest member of the dinner party, who received lavish attention.
Dawkins is good friend of his fellow atheist & science populariser Larry Krauss (now alas no longer permitted on to University campuses in the US after his little bit of trouble)
There is a reason why Dawkins won't be allowed near any banknotes (even racially pure English ones).
Yes the reason is that scientific rational humanism is considered the lowest of low in this country, yet religions of all stripes are pandered too. Or are you try to libel him through insinuation?
The pretty girl at the posh dinner might also have been a lot more interesting to chat to than you and the rest of the old bores there. Or are you assuming he was only interested in her looks?
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
More of a convention. And probably a good thing to avoid putting living celebrities on there.
To be honest, who gives a shit? Cash is almost dead anyway and will have gone the way of the dodo within ten years. I couldn't even tell you who is on the current notes – I never see them.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
My guess is that Welsh banks were simply not large enough to make note production worthwhile once proper regulation took effect.
From memory, I don't think there was any legal reason why English banks had to stop issuing their own notes; they just did so as business decisions. Likewise, 'Scotland' and 'Northern Ireland' do not issue notes: it's banks in Scotland and N Ireland that issue them.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
More of a convention. And probably a good thing to avoid putting living celebrities on there.
To be honest, who gives a shit? Cash is almost dead anyway and will have gone the way of the dodo within ten years. I couldn't even tell you who is on the current notes – I never see them.
Haven’t you just spent the last hour arguing Dawkins should be on them?
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
Cricket was the earliest of the sports to become codified and organised, so I assume that happened before a modest resurgence of Welsh Nationalism that was accommodated with later sports.
Why would there have been a referendum if the Conservative party had split? You can't seriously be suggesting that we'd have ended up with a UKIP government?
- The US has a Trump presidency. - Italy has a Lega-M5S government. - France had Le Pen polling 40%+ against several serious candidates in head-to-heads in the presidential race. - Austria came within a fraction of a Freedom Party president.
You certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that UKIP couldn't have won an election here under certain circumstances, particularly given that they won the 2014 Euros and how many people eventually did vote for Brexit.
But the more likely route is that had Cameron not offered the referendum policy, Miliband would have won in 2015 (or at least, become PM, on a weak mandate and reliant on SNP support), and that Cameron would have been replaced by Boris who did then include a Brexit referendum in his leadership pitch. Whether or not Boris would have lasted as LotO, the pledge would then have proven impossible to drop.
I reckon the scenario that might have led to Ukip becoming serious contenders was Scotland voting for independence followed by the Tories and Labour having a collective meltdown about how to deal with it.
I did a thread on it back in Jan 2014. The main purpose - beside entertainment value - was to emphasise the precisely that point about how rapidly and radically the butterfly effect could take effect given the scale of events then in doubt, and how close the probabilities between the potential outcomes were.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
More of a convention. And probably a good thing to avoid putting living celebrities on there.
To be honest, who gives a shit? Cash is almost dead anyway and will have gone the way of the dodo within ten years. I couldn't even tell you who is on the current notes – I never see them.
Haven’t you just spent the last hour arguing Dawkins should be on them?
Yes, so what? This is PB and it's Friday and I've triggered scores of interesting posts of argument rather than reading yet another thread about Brexit!
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
I've argued for Hooke in the past as well. A true genius, of a very different kind to Newton.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
snip
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
Cricket was the earliest of the sports to become codified and organised, so I assume that happened before a modest resurgence of Welsh Nationalism that was accommodated with later sports.
I thought the Scottish and Irish cricket teams were inaugurated many decades later. Why not have a Welsh one? There are many good Welsh cricketers and the team would be very competitive in a global sense.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
Cricket was the earliest of the sports to become codified and organised, so I assume that happened before a modest resurgence of Welsh Nationalism that was accommodated with later sports.
Wales only has one first-class county, so as a nation it would have struggled to form a Test side. Better to throw in their lot with England and at least have a go.
Scotland has precisely zero first-class counties, yet still has a (half decent) ODI side. I dare say a Welsh side would arguably be stronger than the current Scots one... And nobody even knows that the England side is England & Wales, probably because we play as, erm, England.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
My guess is that Welsh banks were simply not large enough to make note production worthwhile once proper regulation took effect.
From memory, I don't think there was any legal reason why English banks had to stop issuing their own notes; they just did so as business decisions. Likewise, 'Scotland' and 'Northern Ireland' do not issue notes: it's banks in Scotland and N Ireland that issue them.
Wikipedia has information about legal changes in the 19th century that restricted banknote printing in England (& Wales).
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
If you spout xenophobic rhetoric then what do you expect.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
I will put it on the list. But he sounds like a very good science teacher and communicator rather than an innovative scientist. No shame in that - in fact, a very good thing - but it seems to me that there are better claims for honour from dead scientists.
I suspect that @Anazina is less interested in Dawkins the scientist than Dawkins the Scourge of God tbh.
In which spirit, if you really must have a famous proselytising atheist who isn't disqualified by still breathing, I'd suggest Christopher Hitchens.
I have not read anything of Hitchens. Given a choice between political stuff or science for my reading list, politics is a distant second.
TBH, I never read Dawkins because he was an atheist, I read him because he was a clear explainer of his subject - evolutionary biology. The debunking of religious "models" of Universal Creation was just a side-bonus.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
If you spout xenophobic rhetoric then what do you expect.
Comments
The coalition proved a handy way out of an EU referendum in the 2010-15 parliament, but after he got a majority government one was inevitable: if he had not, the party would have been destroyed - with the end effect of there probably being a referendum anyway.
And that's another point to consider if you are a remainer: a referendum on EU membership was probably inevitable. There was - and is - too much distrust of the EU to make our membership easy. Rightly or wrongly it gets blamed for many of the country's ills.
The EU and remainers could - perhaps should - have seen this and tried selling the EU's positives as an antidote to UKIP's hatred and bile. But they didn't.
I have more respect for those failed leaders of the opposition, such as Hague, IDS and Miliband, who stuck around for a bit and continued to contribute.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
Have often thought the God Delusion he refers to is the delusion that the word of Dawkins is Gospel. Vox Dawkins vox dei.
In which spirit, if you really must have a famous proselytising atheist who isn't disqualified by still breathing, I'd suggest Christopher Hitchens.
Shakespeare and Dickens were rightly on a note before Austen. So Maxwell should be on a note, alongside Newton, Darwin and Faraday, before any other scientist.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
I give you Piers Morgan
Just asking....
- Italy has a Lega-M5S government.
- France had Le Pen polling 40%+ against several serious candidates in head-to-heads in the presidential race.
- Austria came within a fraction of a Freedom Party president.
You certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that UKIP couldn't have won an election here under certain circumstances, particularly given that they won the 2014 Euros and how many people eventually did vote for Brexit.
But the more likely route is that had Cameron not offered the referendum policy, Miliband would have won in 2015 (or at least, become PM, on a weak mandate and reliant on SNP support), and that Cameron would have been replaced by Boris who did then include a Brexit referendum in his leadership pitch. Whether or not Boris would have lasted as LotO, the pledge would then have proven impossible to drop.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
We saw the pretty appalling behaviour of their MEPs in Brussels. You could expect the same from their MPs at Westminster.
An EU referendum was probably inevitable, in part because few people were trying to counter the EU's negative image in the minds of many.
How times change.....
Personally I find Dawkins a giant bore. I actually see him as just the other side of the coin of the religious figures he criticises. He starts with his religious position, and all his research, writings, work from there to justify and publicise his pre-conceived position.
Unlike someone like Stephen Hawking who openly said that his research into the mechanics of the universe could point towards a creator or not, and his position seemed to follow his understanding. I know who seems to have the scientific approach there, and as a (sometimes wayward) Christian who I would try to emulate out of the two.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
Arizona
Georgia
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
46-47
47-48
44-45
42-43
48-52
As for the note: I'd go for Turing, which works on several levels.
Manchin behind by 4 ?
Are you sure ? That would go against all the polling thus far.
https://twitter.com/SPIEGEL_English/status/1058343456018456577
I have corrected you on a simple & uncontroversial point.
The Bank of England has specifically asked for the public to vote for a "British scientist". It did not ask for "English scientist".
This is what I posted at 9.53 am.
Dave isn’t coming back.
His friend has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2074111/#Comment_2074111
I fully expect you now to respond with a tirade about my patronising the Welsh. Because, well, it's the next thing that you can find to get aggrieved about.
Ex-Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown is being treated for bladder cancer.
The former MP for Yeovil told Somerset Live that he had been diagnosed three weeks ago and while the outcome was "unpredictable" he had "every confidence" in the care he was getting at the Somerset town's hospital.
The ex-marine commando led the party between 1988 and 1999, during which it became a growing force in UK politics.
"I've fought a lot of battles in my life," he told the website.
"This time I am lucky enough to have the magnificent help of our local hospital, my friends and family, and that gives me great confidence".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070237?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
He inspired a generation to get hands-on with science.
Second choice: Magnus Pyke
He was just the archetypal mad scientist.
Anyway, I'm just miffed that it will be a scientist, rather than an Engineer.
Anyhow, you are not correct. Normal usage is British bank notes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_banknotes_and_coins
The page "English banknotes" does not even exist on wiki.
My primary school was next door to Sir George's house. He had a gate put in his fence so every time we hoofed a ball into his garden we could just let ourselves in to collect it rather than constantly knocking on his door.
Since then, not so much.
Is a land of ramshaggers who invented a language because they were crap at scrabble.
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
Dawkins is good friend of his fellow atheist & science populariser Larry Krauss (now alas no longer permitted on to University campuses in the US after his little bit of trouble)
There is a reason why Dawkins won't be allowed near any banknotes (even racially pure English ones).
You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
Anyway, who wants to be on the £50 when you could be on this:
http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/07/titannote2-55a7a36b59b8f.jpg
Indeed he is an eminent scholar in the world of evolutionary biology but, as this is PB, that is waved away. That he has become a 'cantankerous old soul' as @Anorak neatly puts it, is part of what commends him to banknote candidacy. I'd be professional cantankerous too, if so many of many colleagues were too shy or weak to take on organised superstition, despite the huge damage it does to the world and the way we live our lives.
We already celebrate rafts of religious people and born-into-it monarchs for no good reason. Let's celebrate a dissenting voice, one who has been at the vanguard of science and scepticism, without fear or favour, for the best part of half a century.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/07/giant1-55a7a34c3a851.jpg
(Edit)
There is also a non-religious version of this in the theory of quantum immortality...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/human-existence-will-look-more-miraculous-the-longer-we-survive/554513/
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
The Welsh are the most abusive rugby fans in the world, considering Australia also play rugby that is some achievement.
By contrast the Scots and Irish are always warm and welcoming.
So keep on singing about where we can stick the sweet chariot, I’ll keep on mocking you.
His philosophical work though is deeply flawed, and betrays a certain lack of intellectual rigour. For example, see here:
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-92285124/religion-s-real-child-abuse-op-ed
Based on the claim of one unidentifiable individual who may or may not be trusted he has built a whole chain of reasoning that just happens to support his predetermined conclusion. I don't think that would be accepted even on here, never mind in academia. (It is perhaps worth noting he subsequently denied having made this claim.)
And don't get me started on his claims about Stalin being a Christian, or if he was an atheist, one who didn't make any decisions based on his atheism...
Essentially Dawkins so far as I can judge is a superb writer and speaker who was rescued from a largely undistinguished career largely because of those traits. Well, good luck to him, but that doesn't make him a good scientist or a distinguished thinker.
In the case of the Welsh, not only were Charles I's Welsh troops and their camp followers massacred by Cromwell's army after Naseby, but to add insult to injury, it was because Cromwell's men thought they were Irish!
The pretty girl at the posh dinner might also have been a lot more interesting to chat to than you and the rest of the old bores there. Or are you assuming he was only interested in her looks?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/01/25/it-couldnt-happen-could-it-pm-farage/
But as of right now, I'm not so sure that there is not a teapot orbiting the solar system
From memory, I don't think there was any legal reason why English banks had to stop issuing their own notes; they just did so as business decisions. Likewise, 'Scotland' and 'Northern Ireland' do not issue notes: it's banks in Scotland and N Ireland that issue them.
Scotland has precisely zero first-class counties, yet still has a (half decent) ODI side. I dare say a Welsh side would arguably be stronger than the current Scots one... And nobody even knows that the England side is England & Wales, probably because we play as, erm, England.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling
TBH, I never read Dawkins because he was an atheist, I read him because he was a clear explainer of his subject - evolutionary biology. The debunking of religious "models" of Universal Creation was just a side-bonus.