politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes offering 50/1 that Cameron will be next Foreign Sec

OneArmedBadger said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

¡

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

¡

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1058351962415095809

JosiasJessop said:

OneArmedBadger said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

anothernick said:

JosiasJessop said:

OneArmedBadger said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

Or Francis Crick

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

Pulpstar said:

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.

david_herdson said:

OneArmedBadger said:

JosiasJessop said:

OneArmedBadger said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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 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.

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

volcanopete said:

GOP ahead in 5 key Red states.

Arizona
Georgia
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
46-47
47-48
44-45
42-43
48-52

Manchin behind by 4 ?

Are you sure ? That would go against all the polling thus far.

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

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".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070237?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Nigelb said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Anazina said:

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!

£50: It has to be Heinz Wolff

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.

JosiasJessop said:

tpfkar said:

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!

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 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.

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 note.

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.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 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.

My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.

Anazina said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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:

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/07/titannote2-55a7a36b59b8f.jpg

Beverley_C said:

Anorak said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

Lab gain Denby Dale. Only a majority quoted, 145, suggests a 4-5% Con-Lab swing on May 18 baseline.

Carolus_Rex said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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:

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/07/titannote2-55a7a36b59b8f.jpg

"Haven't you got anything smaller?"

This is the best I can do:

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/07/giant1-55a7a34c3a851.jpg

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 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:

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.

Anazina said:

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

OblitusSumMe said:

Anazina said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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?

Nigelb said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Nigelb said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Anazina said:

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!

Surely he could only discover if he were wrong ?

(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/

"Oh dear. I appear to have lost Pascal's wager. I suppose he is in the other place?"

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 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:

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.

I don't consider him a philosopher at all; rather a not particularly effective public advocate for atheism.

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can we put Cromwell on the £50 note.

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.

YBarddCwsc said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

tpfkar said:

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?

Anazina said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

tpfkar said:

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?

You are Dawkins and I claim my 5p.

RobD said:

Anazina said:

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

I

Anazina said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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?

Regarding the bank note, why not throw aside convention and have Tony Blair It will also look prescient when he becomes the first living Saint.

RobD said:

I

Anazina said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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!

OblitusSumMe said:

Anazina said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Anazina said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

Stark

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?

Doesn't Adam Smith render this argument moot ?