Let me debunk your examples for you.
So yes, other than for Royals, that won't participate in politics anyway, the United Kingdom does not award any new hereditary titles.
That might change with the removal of any hereditary basis for selection in the upper house.
Right now, there are a few hereditary peers elected by their fellow hereditary peers in the house (I think 92). In the 1999 reform, the idea was that this would be transitional and that they would be eliminated. If that happens, hereditary peers will have no involvement in the membership in the House of Lords. At that point, you might start seeing hereditary peerages being granted.
Here are few examples:
1. The country wishes to honor an individual, but doesn't want the person to vote in the Lords. The person is created a viscount (or even a hereditary baron), but not granted a life peerage or with it a seat in the Lords. (Someone such as John Cleese or Stephen Hawkins might fall into that category.)John Cleese turned down a CBE, Stephen Hawkins has an OAM in addition to his 1992 Olympic Gold Medal in Double Sculls for Australia , and the Stephen Hawking you likely meant has a CH and CBE in addition be a member of the Royal Society
As for The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, Hon. RA and The Right Honourable Sir Edward Heath KG MBE, you can see they too had their fair share of honors attached to their name.
You mean The Rt Hon Sir John Major, KG, CH
The Marquess of Lothian was created in 1701, so I have no idea how you think that has any relevancy to today. The commander British land forces in the the Falklands War, Sir John Jeremy Moore KCB, OBE, MC, gives a far more likely idea of what sorts of honors are likely to be given for military success today.
There are already a plethora of honors the British crown can award without granting a life peerage. Even the granting of hereditary baronetages that are not in the peerage has fallen out of favor. The last one was to Sir Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet, of Scotney in the County of Kent in 1990, and last before that had been several granted in the 1960s.
There is zero evidence that there is any call for the granting of new hereditary titles in Britain, and ample ways for the Crown to honor any of its worthy subjects without resuming the practice. I'd have thought a member of Mensa would be able to grasp the obvious, but obviously I was wrong about that given the deluge of ill-founded reasons you have given for why the granting of hereditary titles could resume in Britain.