Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Interval estimation of the Binomial parameter è, representing the true probability of a success, is a problem of long standing in statistical inference. The landmark work is by Bayes (1763) who applied the uniform prior to derive the Beta posterior that is the normalised Binomial likelihood function. It is not well known that Bayes favoured this ‘noninformative’ prior as a result of considering the observable random variable x as opposed to the unknown parameter è, which is an important difference. In this thesis we develop additional arguments in favour of the uniform prior for estimation of è. We start by describing the frequentist and Bayesian approaches to interval estimation. It is well known that for common continuous models, while different in interpretation, frequentist and Bayesian intervals are often identical, which is directly related to the existence of a pivotal quantity. The Binomial model, and its Poisson sister also, lack a pivotal quantity, despite having sufficient statistics. Lack of a pivotal quantity is the reason why there is no consensus on one particular estimation method, more so than its discreteness: frequentist (unconditional) coverage depends on è. Exact methods guarantee minimum coverage to be at least equal to nominal and approximate methods aim for mean coverage to be close to nominal. We agree with what seems like the majority of frequentists, that exact methods are too conservative in practice, and show additional undesirable properties. This includes more recent ‘short’ exact intervals. We argue that Bayesian intervals based on noninformative priors are preferable to the family of frequentist approximate intervals, some of which are wider than exact intervals for particular data values. A particular property of the interval based on the uniform prior is that its mean coverage is exactly equal to nominal. However, once committed to the Bayesian approach there is no denying that the current preferred choice, by ‘objective’ Bayesians, is the U-shaped Jeffreys prior which results from various methods aimed at finding noninformative priors. The most successful such method seems to be reference analysis which has led to sensible priors in previously unsolved problems, concerning multiparameter models that include ‘nuisance’ parameters. However, we argue that there is a class of models for which the Jeffreys/reference prior may be suboptimal and that in the case of the Binomial distribution the requirement of a uniform prior predictive distribution leads to a more reasonable ‘consensus’ prior.