The Banknote Debate Isn’t Really About Banknotes

By Elliot Simmonds, Commercial Director

I have found the recent debate about future UK banknotes more interesting than I expected to.

Not because I have particularly strong views on whether Winston Churchill should remain on a £5 note (I reckon he’s probably had his run), nor because I spend much time thinking about the artwork on banknotes. Like most people, I use cash far less than I once did. Yet the reaction to the Bank of England’s decision to move towards a nature theme has been fascinating.

The debate has quickly become one of those issues where people appear to be arguing about one thing while actually discussing something else entirely.

For some, replacing historical figures with wildlife feels like a missed opportunity to celebrate the individuals who helped shape Britain’s history, or some of the nation’s great feats of engineering. For others, it feels like a refreshing and unifying choice that reflects something all of us share, regardless of our politics, background or beliefs. There are also politicians who have waded in:

“They propose we replace people like him [Churchill]] with a picture of a beaver,” said Reform leader Nigel Farage, although the beaver has subsequently failed to make the shortlist. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “I can’t think of a worse time to do this with a war waging in Europe.” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “a silly thing to do”.

As a result, my suspicion is that the banknotes themselves are not really the point.

One reason I find the discussion interesting is that it cuts across many of the conversations we have in research about identity, belonging and what people value. The Bank of England’s consultation suggested that nature was by far the most popular theme among respondents, attracting significantly more support than alternatives such as innovation, architecture or historical figures. That raises an obvious question: why?

Perhaps people genuinely feel a stronger connection to wildlife than they do to historical personalities. Perhaps nature feels less divisive in an era where almost every public symbol seems capable of generating disagreement. Or perhaps people simply thought pictures of wildlife would look better on banknotes. We should probably be careful about assuming we know the answer.

Working at M·E·L Research, I have had the opportunity over the years to see how passionately people engage with conservation and wildlife issues. We have worked with organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts, the Bat Conservation Trust and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and one thing that always stands out is the depth of public affection for species and habitats that often receive very little attention in national debates. It is easy to forget that wildlife is not a niche interest. Millions of people volunteer, donate, visit reserves, participate in citizen science projects or simply enjoy spending time outdoors. That perhaps makes the consultation result less surprising than some commentators have suggested.

At the same time, I can understand why others are more uncomfortable with the move. Historical figures on banknotes tell a particular story about Britain – and have been there for the last 55 years in one guise or another. They celebrate achievement, invention, leadership, creativity and national contribution. There is a reasonable argument that these are exactly the sorts of things a country should commemorate.

What I find particularly revealing, however, is how quickly the conversation has become about national identity. Comments on BBC (other media are available) and Reddit articles for instance are a great source of this. The discussion is ostensibly about banknote design, but much of the public reaction revolves around a broader question: what best represents Britain in the twenty-first century?

Is it the people who shaped our history?

Or is it the landscapes, wildlife and natural environments that form part of our shared experience?

And then there is the question of which wildlife should be chosen. The shortlist has already generated plenty of discussion. Puffins, kingfishers and bumblebees have all attracted support – and I think there are those making arguments in favour of all of the shortlist. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time around conservation organisations, I have to admit that my immediate reaction was slightly different: how on earth are there no bats? If ever there were a group of animals that deserved a public relations boost, it is bats. They are ecologically important, endlessly fascinating and often badly misunderstood. But I digress, the important bit is that my reaction illustrates something important.

The moment people start engaging with wildlife, they often become surprisingly invested in it. Ask someone which historical figure should appear on a banknote and many will struggle to come up with a view. Ask them which British species deserves recognition and suddenly everyone has an opinion. Some will champion hedgehogs because they remember them visiting the garden as children. Others will choose puffins because they associate them with holidays on the coast. Anglers might argue for salmon. Birdwatchers for curlews. Conservationists for species that rarely receive public attention. Before long, what appeared to be a straightforward discussion about wildlife becomes a conversation about memory, place, personal experience and the things people value.

That is why I am not convinced that nature is as neutral a choice as it first appears. Not because wildlife is politically divisive in the way that historical figures sometimes are, but because people’s connections to nature are often deeply personal. A favourite species can carry memories of and connections to where someone grew up, places they have visited, hobbies they enjoy or causes they care about.

In fact, the more I have thought about the reaction to the shortlist, the more I have become convinced that this debate is not really about banknotes at all. If it were, it is difficult to imagine people caring quite so much. The reason the discussion has generated such interest is that it touches on a question that has become increasingly prominent in Britain over the last decade: what exactly do we have in common?

We are living through a period in which questions of identity, belonging and national story seem to surface everywhere. They appear in debates about statues, museums, migration, local pride, regional identity, the curriculum, the future of the Union and even sporting events. Increasingly, public arguments are not simply about policy. They are about symbols, values and representation. People want to know what a modern Britain looks like and which parts of our history, culture and shared experience deserve to be celebrated.

Viewed through that lens, the debate over banknotes starts to make much more sense. Those who would prefer to retain historical figures are often making the case that Britain should continue to celebrate (some of) the individuals whose achievements shaped the nation. Those who favour wildlife are not necessarily rejecting that history. Rather, they may be responding to a different idea of what represents Britain: not a collection of famous individuals or places or buildings, but something shared by everyone, whether that is a hedgehog in the garden, a curlew on the moors or a kingfisher along a local river.

As researchers, we should probably be wary of drawing grand conclusions from a consultation about banknotes. But the reaction to it does remind us of something important: people care far more about symbols than they often admit. Not because they agree on what those symbols should be, but because they see different versions of themselves, their communities and their country reflected in them. The theme-longlist, and now the shortlist, has become a conversation about what Britain is and what it values. The banknotes just happen to be the vehicle for that conversation.

They themselves will eventually enter circulation and most of us will stop paying much attention to them. But the discussion they have generated is worth reflecting on. Not because it tells us exactly what Britain thinks, but because it raises some interesting questions about what Britain values, what it chooses to celebrate and what kinds of symbols still resonate with the public.

For something as seemingly mundane as a banknote, that is quite an achievement.

Of course, the final decision will apparently be made by the Governor of the Bank of England anyway…

You can vote for your favourite bank note here, by July 3rd:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/help-us-design-our-next-series-of-banknotes

---