The people on British bank notes have been in the news recently with the announced change from Elizabeth Fry to Winston Churchill and then Charles Dickens to Jane Austin.
 
So who would you chose if you had to pick four British people to represent the country on bank notes.  Only rules, person must be British, must be dead and cannot have appeared previously (including Churchill and Austin)
 
My choice would be
 
Dame Cecily Saunders – founder of the modern hospice movement that has allowed millions to die with much more dignity and much less pain than previously.
 
Sir Frank Whittle – for his work on the development of the jet engine (must declare a vested interest as being an engineer and a distant relative)
 
Joseph Turner – we have not had an artist although we have had a playwright, authors and a composer and I would consider Turner the greatest British artist
 
Alfred the Great – not sure if monarchs would be allowed but Alfred is in my opinion the greatest Britain and Churchill, who came top of the BBC Greatest Britons, agreed.
 
Below are the list of previous Britons, I would think that Sir John Houblon is the least well known.
 

£1	Sir Isaac Newton	9 February 1978	11 March 1988
£5	Duke of Wellington	11 November 1971	29 November 1991
£10	Florence Nightingale	20 February 1975	20 May 1994
£20	William Shakespeare	9 July 1970	19 March 1993
£50	Sir Christopher Wren	20 March 1981	20 September 1996
£5	George Stephenson	7 June 1990	21 November 2003
£10	Charles Dickens	29 April 1992	31 July 2003
£20	Michael Faraday	5 June 1991	28 February 2001
£50	Sir John Houblon	20 April 1994	in use
£5	Elizabeth Fry	21 May 2002	in use
£10	Charles Darwin	7 November 2000	in use
£20	Sir Edward Elgar	22 June 1999	1 July 2010
£5	Winston Churchill	2016	-
£10	Jane Austen	2017	-
£20	Adam Smith	13 March 2007	in use
£50	James Watt and Matthew Boulton	2 November 2011	in use

One for sometime in the future - can't suggest him yet, as he is still very much alive: Tim Berners-Lee.

I may well be called a prickly jock (I'm paranoid you know) but don't you mean Bank of England notes Tim? Unless we've been declared independent (retrospectively) when I wasn't listening, Scottish notes are still British so you can add to your list of Britons on British banknotes:-

Sir Walter Scott
Lord Hay
R. L. Stevenson
Alexander Graham Bell
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
Robert Burns
Mary Slessor
Elsie Inglis
Adam Smith
Lord Kelving
Alexander Fleming
Charles Rennie MacIntosh

I've omitted Robert the Bruce but if Alfred can be classed as 'British', then perhaps not.

And then there's the Northern Irish ones.

John Boyd Dunlop
Harry Ferguson 
Sir Samuel Cleland Davidson
Sir James Martin
George Best.

Sorry Ferval, down here in the 'deep south', as the Likely lads once referred to Surrey, we do not often see Scottish or Northern Irish notes.  Yes I do mean those issued by the Bank of England although the people who have so far been portrayed on them have not all been born in England.

I would agree that Alfred the Great is only 'British' in the sense of having been born in the island now referred to as Great Briton.  He is the only English monarch to be given the title 'Great' although not the only British monarch.  It was when someone referred to Churchill as the 'greatest ever Englishman' that he replied that Alfred was but Churchill did top the BBC list of 100 Great Britons, not English.

Unfortunetely we are not being given a vote about whether England should become independent or whther the UK should become a truely federal country with all 4 parts having the same level of devolved government, which is what I would like to see.

regards

Tim

Ah, yes, Tim, you touch on a sore point about our not getting a referendum. About me are folks who cry out for one that - sadly - would vote for ousting Scotland Wales NI - and even Cornwall. But that's Essex for you. Federality is what many thinking people would like, I think. World federalism though never took off did it? Someone in the House of Lords - I forget who - used to write to me abroad in the '60's to get a local 'chapter' going. I    often wonder why some never recognise a dead horse notion once it takes hold?

My four would be:-

Mary Wollstonecraft.  I was shouting her name at PM the other day during a feature on the Austen business, like a truly wierd middle aged man who believes that Eddie Mair can actually hear him.  However, on this occasion, it worked.  One of the talking heads so beloved of Radio 4 was wheeled in and suggested MW not ten seconds later.

Sir Titus Salt.  Hurrah for philanthropic mill owners and their splendid model towns!

Brian Blessed.  You have to respect a shouty, sweary man with a beard and they don't come shoutier, swearier or beardier than Mr B.

Captain Pugwash.  Hear me out. He represents three strands of British life that we hold most dear - artistic creativity, fair play and the ruling of the waves.

As far as English independence is concerned, do we not have to ask "independent of what?". 

Amused to read that if Scotland goes independent, there are Shetlanders who would then want to cede from Auld Reekie and become a crown dependency of the UK.  Apparently, some of them get a teensy bit annoyed when the SNP talk about "Scottish oil" and wish to point out that a) most of the oil is around the Shetlands and b) irrespective of political arrangements, Shetland is not Scotland.


Regards,

AR

I rather like the idea of Captain Pugwash -  represents all that we Brits (or should that be we English?) hold dear. Can we have Francis Drake, too, and Lizzie I, our very own pirate queen? Those were the days.



I remember bttdp once saying that any old pirate can steal a ship, but only the Brits can steal the country it's moored (is that the right word?) to as well...

Arwe Rheged wrote:

Captain Pugwash.  Hear me out. He represents three strands of British life that we hold most dear - artistic creativity, fair play and the ruling of

 I would have gone for Basil Brush myself.

If I were British anyway.

Hi AR

 neither Brian Blessed nor Captain Pugwash are dead so they do not qualify.  I always get the impression that Ian Hislop wishes Brian Blessed was dead everytime he chairs 'Have I got news for you'.

The MoD are also looking to hang onto Faslane should Scotland go independent, make it a UK Soveriegn base.

It's not clear how Shetland and Faslane etc could become anything 'UK' after Scotland is independent. That's because there simply won't be a UK by definition. It is possible, however, that the rump state will be renamed something like the United Kingdom of South Britain & Eastern Ulster (and keep the same flag) just so that the Westminster village can continue to live in its fantasy bubble.

As for people on English bank notes then I think that Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti should be a candidate. He's a much underrated electrical engineer who in the 1880s and 1890s pioneered the technique of stepping down an alternating current in the safe provision of electricity from power stations to consumers.

If Scotland votes for independence then we call the new 'UK' England, the Welsh and the Northern Irish can always leave too!

Up here we're pretty much of the opinion that that's how the current UK has been thought of by the South Britons all along. 

Shetland will be just fine whatever happens, their 1 billion oil fund is a handy cushion from life's ups and downs. Scotland in general however is unique in being the only country ever to have found substantial oil reserves in its territory and then ended up poorer.

It just might of course be more than just Scotland that decide that their interests are so contrary to those of the South East that they should look away from the ravening maw of London and start to plough a more independent furrow. Now if the Reivers were to re-form, that could be interesting.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/jul/26/scottish-independence-northeast-england

ferval wrote:

Scotland in general however is unique in being the only country ever to have found substantial oil reserves in its territory and then ended up poorer.

 You're not alone, a few South American and African countries found themsleves in the same boat.

Quote :

Up here we're pretty much of the opinion that that's how the current UK has been thought of by the South Britons all along. 
 

Actually I would have said that England lost its identify in Britain, which it has since rediscovered to an extent.  Scottish, Welsh and Northen Irish MPs can vote on purely English matters, which English MPS cannot on those countries.  An Economist article showed that in fact, for most time, the tax spending/revenue balance favoured Scotland even allowing for North Sea Oil and creditting all Shetland oil as Scottish.  

I get the impression that it is foriegners who confuse England with Britain, although even Field Marshall Haig, a Scot, talked about England fighting on, when he clearly meant the UK.  Actually there is no reason why the UK could not continue being called the UK if Scotland does become independent.  After all the USA does not control half of North America let alone all the Americas and that does not stop it calling itself the United States of America rather than the United States of the central bit of North America.

A question Ferval concerning if Scotland does go independent.  At the moment Scottish students have free eductation in Scottish Universities but not English, Welsh or North Irish.  EU students, however, also get free Tuition fees and it would be illegal for Scotland then to charge them without charging Scottish students as well.  With Scotland independent they would have to either charge Scottish students or not charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students.  Assuming the latter, will Scotland not then be overwhelmed with English Students applying for Scottish university places leading to Scottish students with lower grades not getting places and Scotland effectively subsidising the English education system!

By the way I entirely agree about the problem of the divide between the southern and northern half of England and would not look forward to more yet Tory governments should Scotland separate, however, I do not expect to end up living in South Humbria.

You're right Tim, at least technically, about the United Kingdom still being extant if Scotland did vote Yes since it's the Union of Parliaments and not the Union of the Crowns that would be revoked. Auld Lizzie would still be Queen of Scots - an interesting difference in nomenclature in itself. That being said, a few brave souls are floating a referendum on the monarchy if there were to be a Yes vote. 
Myself, I'm not a fan of referenda, I'm not even convinced about a total franchise!

So far the debate has been mostly at a truly dreadful level; the No lot doing all they can to play into the Scottish Cringe by doing a fair impersonation of Frazer, "We're all doomed" and the Yes lot concentrating of division of assets like a really bitter divorcing couple, " We want the dvd collection and the dog". Scottish Labour (hah!) is tying itself in knots, being under the cosh from London and afraid to open its mouth and the Tories are frankly irrelevant. The SNP can't seem to get across that the referendum isn't a personal vote for Wee Eck (big Eck might be more accurate as his girth expands) to be dictator in perpetuity.
 
Now if the whole of the UK would just go back to Jimmy Reid's idea of a Common Weal then we could all be a lot happier. http://scottishcommonweal.org/what-is-common-weal/

ferval wrote:

Up here we're pretty much of the opinion that that's how the current UK has been thought of by the South Britons all along. 

Shetland will be just fine whatever happens, their 1 billion oil fund is a handy cushion from life's ups and downs. Scotland in general however is unique in being the only country ever to have found substantial oil reserves in its territory and then ended up poorer.

It just might of course be more than just Scotland that decide that their interests are so contrary to those of the South East that they should look away from the ravening maw of London and start to plough a more independent furrow. Now if the Reivers were to re-form, that could be interesting.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/jul/26/scottish-independence-northeast-england

 The "problem" for all of us in the UK is that like it or loathe it, London is our economic powerhouse.  Unlike Germany, who have developed a number of major city economies, we have focussed everything on Greater London.  People who don't live Dahn Saaf - including northerners, Scots, Welsh, Irish, west country cider-based life forms and many midlanders - like to get annoyed about the smugness of our Londoncentric political establishment, but let's not forget that London is chock full of northerners, Scots etc, all making their living and we all benefit as a result, much as we profess to hate the whey-faced eel swallowers of the metropolis.  That said, London should be subsidising the rest of us - that's the quid pro quo for being allowed to be the sole true international powerhouse.

Scottish independence (if it happens) would, I think, lead to a certain shift in the regional economic perspective, of the north east at least.  It would happen less in Cumbria, not because we do not look north, but because our economy is based in the most part on farming and tourism.  However, the problem for the north east is that any economic benefits associated with Scottish independence will by necessity be dictated by the strength of an independent Scottish economy.  In other words, if the money is still concentrated in London, any shift of focus will be a modest one.

The one benefit which I think Northern English counties would definitely see would be an infux of qualified, able young Scottish people seeking work.  Northumberland and Cumbria are already home to the two biggest Scottish expat populations (expressed as a percentage of the overall populations, which admittedly are small) and I would anticipate seeing that increase.  

Regards

AR

London - economic powerhouse? Not everyone agrees AR. I appreciate that for many people living in London life is just as hard as for the rest of us in the 'provinces' but I have a great deal of sympathy for the view expressed here.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/london-is-a-separate-state-that-impoverishes-us-all.21872633

We have the same issues here with Auckland.  It is in a different sphere from the rest of us, and drains the provinces and the other cities because of its transport requirements and its huge housing bubbles.  Laws have to be made to deal with the problems it has as an out-of-control economy which impact on the rest of us.  Economists say that you have to have one very large central city and work has to go there.  So immigrants arrive in Aucklands and refugees (perhaps not so much refugees, and anyway we don't have many of these), and businesses relocate to the north generally, and provincial NZ is left to languish.  The government is laisse-faire and hands-off (except when it wants something, so it can afford $43 million to support the America's Cup yacht, and can change our employment laws to ensure The Hobbit gets made here, and can buy into the aluminium smelter (owned by Rio Tinto, not short of a bob or two) to ensure its power company is propped up so the government can sell our assets) and won't intervene generally to help provincial New Zealand.  So every week another business relocates north or goes overseas.

There has been something of a backlash and mayors of southern areas are lobbying, and there is talk of starting a new political party based on provincial concerns.  But Auckland has half our population or so, so naturally a lot of voting is there.  But why every new person to the country is shoved to Auckland is a mystery.  Young people say buying their first house is out of their reach (though personally I feel if they didn't want to live in a nice house in a good suburb they wouldn't struggle so much) but it wouldn't be if they lived where I do.  Auckland's median house price is over half a million, here you can get a very nice house with a large garden for $250,000, and lots of houses would be about half that.  Median house price through the country is around $390,000 (but would be considerably lower if you took out Auckland's).

Southland has about 100,000 in population and raises 12% of the country's overseas exports.  But they don't count to the government. 

Well, this isn't very historic and little more than a rant, and certainly nothing to do with who should be on bank notes.  I thought Charles Rennie MacIntosh, but perhaps he is disqualified for already being on a Scottish note.  Ernest Rutherford would suit us here.  Perhaps not Mrs Thatcher. Maybe Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.  Keir Hardie.