I don't like the metric system, and am quite happy with imperial measurement. I hate having to buy petrol in litres for instance and dislike having the metric system forced down our throats by Brussells. I hope the Americans stick with their system for a long long time. I love the fact that they still use Gallons.

At the risk of bringing the debate back to measurement, rather than statements that might have been made in a 1970 "Miss UK" competition.....

(Ms Just North of the Watford Gap stated

"I would like to see world peace, and the whole world adopt the UK gallon...... And we should all take care of little fluffy bunny rabbits!")

Yeah, let us adopt the US gallon in the UK. It will cost vast amounts of money to convert the pumps. No-one will understand the unit of measurement used.

But Paul Spinks obviously represents the 86% of the UK population that don't want metric on our roads!!!!!!!!

Have you been at that Whisky again, Berenger?

;-)

re (Beranger (hic!)): "But Paul Spinks obviously represents the 86% of the UK population that don't want metric on our roads!!!!!!!!"

REPLY: I see the message is getting through

<<<I hate having to buy petrol in litres>>>

Yes its awful. The whole experience of filling up with fuel used to be such a pleasurable experience. Now its so different, and my cars never been the same since.

I fill my car up in "moneysworth" - I do hope that's legal....

"I hate having to buy petrol in litres for instance and dislike having the metric system forced down our throats by Brussells."


It is really very simple. Don't buy anything that is sold metric. Whether it be petrol or anything else. Eventually your problem will be solved.

<<
It is really very simple. Don't buy anything that is sold metric.
>>

... oops, electicity is sold in metric units - be it volts, amps of watts. But since the definitions used in electricty were developed by British scientists, is it OK to use electricity?

Apart from being dubious to what is or what is not metric you've fallen into Dandy's trap.

By the way - when you last switched your TV on - did you caclulate how much it cost per minute? No? Ohhhhh! I thought that's how electricity was sold!

[Jeesh]

<<<By the way - when you last switched your TV on - did you caclulate how much it cost per minute? No? Ohhhhh! I thought that's how electricity was sold!>>>

When you buy a bunch of bananas you generally buy "a bunch" or "four bananas" but you lot still complained when they started being weighed by the kilo instead of by the pound.

Let me guess, in 10 years time when the days of buying fruit and veg in pounds have long gone, you will be saying that you don't buy bananas by weight.

<<Yeah, let us adopt the US gallon in the UK. It will cost vast amounts of money to convert the pumps. No-one will understand the unit of measurement used.>>

You could go back to calling it the Queen Anne gallon, and feel much better about it. It was well understood in 1707. Tony would love it. :)

re (JohnS-MI): "You could go back to calling it the Queen Anne gallon, and feel much better about it. It was well understood in 1707. Tony would love it"

REPLY: They had better quality men running this country then than we have now. And wasn't that the glorious year in which Scotland decided to join England and Wales? I believe they had a referendum on the subject?

Andy - I don't go into a shop and buy electricity by the anything!

It's a different story altogether.

Although I grant you that buying bananas by exact measures is quite difficult. There is approximation in everything. I think the banana/lb thing is more of a pricing thing rather than a situation where most people are audibly heard still asking for cheese (for eg.) by the pound and will do beyond 2010.

<<REPLY: They had better quality men running this country then than we have now. And wasn't that the glorious year in which Scotland decided to join England and Wales? I believe they had a referendum on the subject?
>>

I wouldn't know about that. I was just pointing out that the US gallon and bushel both originated in the UK. Both are more "historical" than the Imperial gallon of 1824, which we ignored.

Tony -- I'm surprised you support that "new-fangled" gallon when there is a more historic gallon you could use.

Electricity is sold by the kilowatt hour (kWh). While this is not an SI unit as the hour isn't an SI unit, it is a unit officially 'accepted for use with the SI' and therefore counts as a metric unit. As far as I know there are NO non-metric units for electricity. There are NO imperial equivalents to the ampere, volt, watt etc. Sometimes it is sold by the 'unit' but I suspect this is simply a synonym for a kilowatt hour (possibly to pander to the ignorance of the masses who obviously could never get their heads round anything as scientific or foreign as a kilowatt hour). Does anyone know for sure?

Whatever it is this 'unit' obscures the relationship between the wattage of a device and how much electricity it uses. If I have a 100 W lightbulb running for 10 hours I'll use 1 000 W of electrity or 1 kWh. What could be more logical?

I take it those who boycott products sold in metric will revert to the gas lamp and steam computer.

I'm sure it is like the litres of petrol Stimpy buys. Fill up, pay up, ignore the fact that usage could be estimated. The amount of electricity used only matters if you make some attempt to control your bill by buying efficient appliances or turning unnecessary loads off.

You are correct about electrical units. There are no Imperial units; to the best of my knowledge, there never have been. In the 1800's, there were two competing sets of metric units, abvolts, statvolts, etc. They haven't been used for a long time. Those are the only alternate units I'm aware of.

"I believe they had a referendum on the subject?"


No they did not! Imperial was forced down the peoples throats. Some people were so dead set against the imperial reform that they formed the British Weights and Measures Association to combat the imperial enforcement.

Now the BWMA accepts the imperial reform and fights metric. The BWMA members of 1824 would be turning over in their graves if they knew what the present BWMA members are supporting.

If the BWMA was a true preserver of British Weights and Measures, they would be fighting not only the use of the present imperial, but all of the units based on those imported during the Norman conquests and demand a return to the pre-Norman decimal British units in which the wand was a base unit only 7 mm different from the present metre.

The wand, or ell, was of course mostly 45", about 6" longer than the metre, not 7mm different - see this delightful piece on the measurement of cricket, below.

Daniel Jackson clearly hasn't read my pieces on the Molmutine laws, the ancient British laws codified around 400BC by King Moelmyd, which used the acre and other customary measures. And they weren't decimal, Daniel:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The measurements of cricket

A R Littlewood

The measurements of most sports are in round numbers, except for a few of those that have been converted to metric equivalents. The welter of precise measurements in cricket seems distinct, but in fact some have quite a simple origin.

The earliest known Laws of Cricket, the "Code of 1744", give the length of the pitch as 22 yards. Over the centuries the often vague and regionally differing Saxon linear measurements becaine standardized to give a mile (a survival of the old Roman measurement of 1,000 double paces) as equal to 8 furlongs (i.e. "furrow long") or 320 perches (also called rods or poles) or 1,760 yards (from the Old English gyrd that meant stick or twig) or 5,280 feet or 63,360 inches or 190,080 barley corns (e.g. in the thirteenth century a royal Assize of Weights and Measures prescribed "the Iron Yard of our Lord the King" at 3 feet of 12 inches or 36 barley corns).

It will thus be seen that 22 yards is in fact one tenth of a furlong or length of a furrow. There was an equally vague Saxon square measurement of land, the hide (called also carucate, from the Latin for a plough, and ploughland) which was the area required by one free family with dependents and that could be ploughed with one plough and 8 oxen in one year. This was in turn divided into four yardlands or 100 acres, the definition of which was the amount of land that could be ploughed by one yoke of oxen in one day. In Norman times the acre became precisely defined as 40 by 4 perches, thus preserving the shape of the Saxon strip-acre, i.e. one furlong by one tenth of a furlong. The cricket pitch is therefore simply the breadth of the Saxon strip-acre.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that cricket, which is believed to have had its origins on the Weald that was used primarily as grazing ground for sheep rather than ploughland, necessarily took the length of its pitch directly from this source, although the largest Saxon mete-wand or measuring rod, the gad, continued in use into the early days of cricket and was one perch in length, i.e. one quarter of the breadth of a furrow.

In 1610 Edmund Gunter, an Oxford trained mathematician, now Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College, London, invented as an instrument of measurement the chain, taking its length from the breadth of the furrow and dividing it into 100 links of 7.92 inches each (i.e. 4 perches [not 40 as stated by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. 19, p. 729, which is the length of the furrow]; By 1661 use of this chain had become sufficiently popular for the word to be used to designate the measurement itself}.

This chain became the common measuring tool for land surveyors. We do not know when cricketers first wished to standardize their pitch, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at least pitches were often physically marked out with the use of Gunter's chain.

The distance between the bowling crease and the popping crease (i.e. the crease over which the bat could be popped for safety) is given by the "Code of 1744" as 46 inches (increased to 48 inches sometime before 1821).

Before creases were marked in whitewash in 1865 they were cut into the earth and were, as W.G. Grace remembered from his early days, one inch deep and one inch wide. With allowance made of 1/2 inch from the centre of each crease the distance between the inner edges of the creases was thus 45 inches, that is the length of an ell (or "wand"). This was another Saxon measurement that had been standardized by the time of Edward I who required that there should be an exact copy of his ell-wand in all the towns of his realm. It was used regularly for measuring cloth (hence its later name of clothyard), and indeed the king's alnager had the duty of checking that all cloth for sale was one ell in width. It was thus a measurement that would have been very familiar to the cricketing folk of the sheep-rearing Weald.

The ell's subdivision into 16 nails of 2 and 13/16 inches each probably accounts for the size of the early wicket.

According to the "Code of 1744" "Ye Stumps must be 22 inches long, and ye Bail 6 inches". P.F. Thomas (who wrote under the pseudonymous H.P.-T.) convincingly argues that these figures are a rounding off by the gentlemen of London of the earlier rustic measurement of 8 nails by 2 nails, which would give a wicket of 22 and 1/2 by 5 and 5/8 inches.

The addition of the third stump c. 1775 did not change the dimensions of the wicket but since 1798 a series of alterations has brought them to the present 28 by 9 inches. The addition of the third stump did not immediately bring about the division of the single bail into two bails (first mentioned in the Maidstone edition of the Laws c. 1786 but not in a reputable edition until the early nineteenth century. It is InterestIng that even in the 1950s bails were often sold as a single piece to be cut at the discretion of the purchaser).

There were no legal limits on the size of the bat until Shock White appeared in a match with a weapon the width of the wicket, unsporting behaviour that led two days later to his opponents, the Hambledon Club, writing the following minute: "In view of the performance of one White of Ryegate on September 23rd that ffour (sic) and quarter inches shall be the breadth forthwith. - this 25th day of September 1771".

It is signed by its scribe Richard Nyren and by T. Brett and J. Small and was speedily accepted elsewhere, occuring already in the "Code of 1774". The Hambledonians promptly made an iron gauge to check the implements of future opponents, but unfortunately it has been lost since it was purloined by "a gentleman who took a fancy to it". Other similar gauges were, however, manufactured, the one at Sheffield Park once catching out W.G. Grace. Approximately 4 and 1/4 inches is the standard width of all earlier known bats, the oldest being that owned by John Chitty of Knaphill now in the pavilion at Kennington Oval that is dated to 1729.

There is tenuous evidence for an earlier period. The Roman Catholic College of Stonyhurst removed to France and later Belgium during the religious persecution of the sixteenth century and kept up a form of cricket that it brought back to England when forced to move by the French revolution. A teacher who left the school in 1871 remembers its bats as being blocks of probably alder wood about 3 feet long, "roughly oval in shape, about 4 and 1/2 in. wide and 2 in. thick". This distinctive Stonyhurst cricket had remarkable wickets, stones about 17 in. high, 13 in. wide and 8 in. thick at the bottom. There has never been any limitation on the weight of the bat, one of 1771 weighing a monstrous 5 Ib.

The "Code of 1744" prescribes that 'Ye Ball must weigh between 5 and 6 Ounces". Its circumference was not specified until May lOth 1838 when it was put as between 9 and 9 and 1/4 inches. This lack of precision corroborates what one might suspect, that a ball was the weight and size found convenient and that the difficulties of manufacture have precluded even today any precise specification.

The size of the wicket and other laws have been frequently changed in attempts to be fair to both batsman and bowler. Is it not time for further revisions of measurements? The principal problems today are the ease with which even mis-hits go to the boundary and the sharply rising bouncers from tall fast bowlers. It is impossible to push back the boundaries at most grounds (though Kennington Oval and Grace Road, Leicester, for instance, do not use all the available playing area for any one match), but a restriction on the weight of the bat would not only revive more refined batsmanship but also once more enable slow bowlers to tempt batsmen to their doom with catches in the deep.

The length of the pitch was chosen by cricketers who bowled, that is propelled the ball under arm, and were on average shorter than their modern counterparts who can hurl their missile from far above their heads. Is it not time that the pitch should be lengthened, that the old Saxon strip-acre should at last be left fallow ?

Tony said (re 1707)

"And wasn't that the glorious year in which Scotland decided to join England and Wales?"

Is this the same Tony that claimed that "Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D" and "a long tradition of political union, ...., going back centuries" in his discredited CMS report?

So, now he has at last admitted that Great Britain has existed for all of 198 years, will he now also admit that the earliest possible date he can claim for the UK is 1801 and that it has only existed in it's present form since 1927?

Tony referred to Scotland "deciding" and also said

"I believe they had a referendum on the subject?"

Let us look at what really happened.

In 1701, there are separate Scots & English parliaments. Queen Anne is Queen of Scots & also Queen of England. Her only son dies. The (English) Act of Settlement is passed. It states that if she has no more sons, the Crown passes to Sofia of Hanover.

The Scottish Parliament refuses to agree. It passes Acts hostile to England, the most important of which was the Act of Security. This gave the Scots parliament power to nominate a successor (of Scotland's choice) to Anne within 20 days of her death.

So now, there was a possibility that the Scots could again have a separate monarch. By 1704 Scotland was moving towards more independence rather than union while Anne and her English government were trying to bring the two countries closer together.

They put pressure on Scotland with the Alien Act of 1705. The Scots were given until Christmas Day to accept the Hanoverian succession or to appoint commissioners to negotiate a union. If neither action was taken Scots would be treated as aliens in England, threatening property held by Scots there, and trade with England and her colonies would be destroyed.

Money suddenly became available to Scottish MP's to support union. In a poorly attended Scottish Parliament it was decided to appoint the commissioners to negotiate a union.

There were huge protests when the terms of the union were published. It was passed by a majority in the Scottish Parliament on 16th January 1707. What can only be described as a bribe of £398,085-10s English pounds was paid by England as compensation for Scotland now taking on part of England's national debt.

Already in 1708 the agreements of the union were beginning to be broken by the English. By 1724 and 1736 there were anti-English riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Economic force, bribery & broken promises - the founding basis of our so-called "United" Kingdom.

As Robert Burns put it (in 1791)

"But, pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll make this declaration:
We were bought and sold for English gold!
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation!"

Here's a more neutral and fair assessment of the recent history of Scottish-English relations - including the events leading up to the 1707 Act of Union - than Beranger's blinkered view. It can be found at: www.unionofthecrowns.com/story/07

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The united kingdoms have remained in place for the four hundred years since James VI succeeded to the throne of England. The immediate aftermath was not a peaceful one, with James’ son and grandson involved in civil war, fought over religious and political issues. This was followed by the Jacobite attempts to restore a Stewart king to the monarchy in the early 18th century. Before this, the two nations’ parliaments had merged in the 1707 Act of Union.

As the king had ruled Scotland and England from London in the 17th century, the parliaments now did in the 18th. Despite both countries having been united under the Union flag for centuries, there remains very strong feelings of national identity on both sides. The return of the Stone of Destiny in 1996 and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were, in some measure, a response to this expression of Scottish identity in particular.

Charles I

Charles I was the second son of James VI of Scotland. He was one of the few of James's children to have been born in Scotland - at Dunfermline in 1600. He succeeded to the joint crowns in 1625 because his elder brother, Henry, Prince of Wales, had died young in 1612.

Scotland's main problems between 1603 and 1689 involved religion and both Charles I and his son Charles II were faced with rebellion from the Scots. The Scots turned against Charles I because he wished to make the Scottish Church the same as the English. He introduced the English prayer book and the Scots showed their opposition by signing the National Covenant. This document stated that although the Scots would remain loyal to the King, they did not agree to the King being head of the Church. War broke out in both Scotland and England, and Charles eventually surrendered to the Scots. He was executed in London on 30 January 1649.

The Covenanters

This painting is of the signing of the National Covenant which called for all Scots to oppose Roman Catholicism and the policies of Charles I. The painting dates from the 19th century and was painted by William Hole. First signed in 1638, the National Covenant was copied for distribution to every burgh and parish. Ostensibly about religion, it became the manifesto of a wide range of opposition to Charles I. The term 'National Covenant' drew on Old Testament notions of covenants between God and Man, and between God and Israel. It suggested that the Scots were comparable to the Children of Israel and thus a chosen race.

Decree by Oliver Cromwell uniting Scotland and England into one Commonwealth, 1654

Following the execution of King Charles I in England in 1649, Cromwell had taken occupation of most of Scotland. In 1651, English Commissioners came north to invite the people of Scotland to form 'a happy union' with England. This ordinance, dated 12 April 1654, states the terms and conditions of the union.

Scotland would relinquish all loyalties and homage to every possible heir of the late King Charles. The Scottish Parliament would become null and void. Instead, Scotland, including Orkney and Shetland, would send 30 representatives in a new Commonwealth Parliament in London - 20 from the shires and 10 from the burghs. Common taxes would be charged across the whole of the united Commonwealth, Scotland would have free trade with England and the dominions, would benefit from the removal of customs and excise duties charged by England, and the St Andrew's Cross would be included in the new arms of the Commonwealth. Scottish members sat in Parliament during the 1650s but as a minority, wielded little power or influence. The restoration of Charles II brought an end to these attempts at a united parliament.

Paper fan produced to mark the 1707 Act of Union

The Treaty of Union in 1707 united the parliaments of Scotland and England. Possibly the most significant event in the history of Scotland since the era of Robert the Bruce, the 1707 Treaty was the result of political and economic factors becoming irresistible. The Darien disaster of 1698-1700, when supposedly half of Scotland’s available capital was raised by public subscription (and subsequently lost), ruined Scotland’s economy, and its sense of economic confidence. Opponents of the Union found it increasingly difficult to counter the financial benefits union with England would bring.

As part of the ‘Equivalent’ – the £398,000 to offset Scotland’s losses – money was made available to compensate those who had lost heavily through Darien, and for salary arrears. In some quarters this was seen as forming inducements, or bribes, leading to figures such as Robert Burns expressing his view “We’re bought and sold for English gold, Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!” His reaction reflects much of the passionate feeling about the Union which still exists today.

This paper fan dates from the early 18th century. It is decorated with images associated with the Treaty of Union of 1707. Among the images painted on the folds of the fan are a thistle, a rose, the English and Scottish flags and a pair of hands clasped in a handshake.

James Francis Edward Stuart ‘The Old Pretender’

The 17th century saw attempts by the Stuarts to restore themselves to the throne, these ventures being the Jacobite rebellions. In the post 1707 environment, with the Act of Union and the Hanoverian succession in place, Scottish sentiments could be persuaded to support the exiled Stuart ‘monarchs.’

The Old Pretender – who had been recognised by the French king as King of Scotland, Ireland and England – was personally involved in two of these uprisings. The 1708 rising saw the Prince set sail from Dunkirk in France. However, illness and a reluctant ship’s captain meant that he did not actually set foot in Scotland.

The 1715 Jacobite rising also failed, despite considerable support in Scotland and North England. Disaffection with the monarchy and the government, in particular taxation, led to popular uprisings. The Old Pretender landed at Peterhead but the moment was lost as government forces had prevailed and he spent only three weeks in Scotland.

Culloden

The final Jacobite rising took place in 1745. Bonnie Prince Charlie took his Jacobite forces as far south as Derby, en route to his intended destination of London, and the throne of Great Britain. He turned back and retreated to Culloden, near Inverness where his army faced the Duke of Cumberland’s government forces. The Battle of Culloden – the last pitched battle in mainland Britain – took place in April 1746 and was a clear victory for the government troops. The Young Pretender was forced into hiding and left behind a Highland community open to the severe policies of the government, keen to ensure they never faced another Jacobite rebellion.

Scotland v England, 1967

In the centuries since royal and political union, national sentiments have remained to a certain degree. One of the areas where feelings of patriotic identification come to the fore is in the sporting arena. As football is the national game of both England and Scotland, the fixture between both teams is a natural outlet for large-scale demonstrations of patriotism.

One notable example of this is the 1967 game held at Wembley in London. England were newly crowned World Champions and Scotland became the first team to beat them since that day the previous year. The score was [REST OF THIS SENENCE SNIPPED - TB].

The fixture was discontinued after fears of crowd trouble in the early 1990s. Since this time, there have been occasional games between Scotland and England in European Championship games, which see a renewal of the rivalries.

Stone of Destiny Returns

An announcement was made by the Prime Minister in July 1996 that the Queen had agreed that the Stone of Destiny should be returned to Scotland. Arrangements were put in place by Historic Scotland for the huge operation to return the Stone. It was agreed after wide consultation that it should be brought back to Edinburgh Castle and displayed with the Honours of Scotland.

The Stone of Destiny was used in the inauguration ceremonies of the early Scottish kings. It was kept in the abbey of Scone and it was from there that the Stone was taken by King Edward I of England in 1296. The Stone was formally returned to Scotland in November 1996. This series of records describe the Stone’s removal from Westminster Abbey and its reinstatement in Edinburgh Castle.

On the morning of 15th November 1996 the Stone of Destiny crossed Coldstream Bridge in procession behind a military brass and pipe band.

Parliament Opening 1999

The Royal procession making its way up the Royal Mile from Holyrood. The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles were all in attendance on this historic day, 1st July 1999. The Parliament had been up and running since May but full constitutional power was not given until after this date.

The Scottish Parliament, elected on May 6, 1999, sat for the first time on May 12. It took on its full legislative powers and functions on July 1, 1999. The previous Scottish Parliament was adjourned on March 25, 1707. The Scottish Constitutional Convention ('SCC’) produced its final report in November 1995, ‘Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right’, which outlined proposals for the implementation of a devolution scheme. This report formed the basis of the devolution policy presented in the Labour Party manifesto for the May 1997 general election. After election, the Labour government arranged for a referendum on its proposals, which was held on 11 September 1997 and produced clear majorities for the two propositions, the creation of a Scottish Parliament and its having certain tax-varying powers.

The Scottish Parliament has 129 members, 73 elected from the constituencies, elected on the first past the post system and 56 additional members selected on a proportional basis drawn up for each of eight larger regions. The Parliament is kept in order by a Presiding Officer who is an MSP and elected by the Parliament. The Parliament is able to make primary legislation but is not able to legislate about reserved matters. The Parliament is temporarily accommodated in the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall until the new building at Holyrood is completed.

Note that Tony makes no attempt to rebut any point I made regarding 1701 - 1707.

I was not referring to the earlier failed attempts to join the parliaments. I was referring specifically to Tony's assertation that Scotland held a referendum and decided to join with England.

Yes, I would agree that the English bribe was intended to be used to compensate Darien investors.

But what about the earlier bribing of the Scottish Parliament Members? What about the economic sanctions - including these that (in part) led to the failure of Darien? What about the broken articles of the Act of Union.

If anyone apart from Tony & myself is interested in this subject, I suggest you read a Scottish history book rather than a English/British one. Even Tony's version hints at the huge divisions in our so-called happy family!

And why snip the score of the '67 match? :-)

<<
There are NO imperial equivalents to the ampere, volt, watt etc.
>>

There are plenty of imperial equivalents to the watt, horsepower and BTU/h being the most common.

There are also statvolts and statamperes, but these are gaussian, not imperial units.

<<<
<<
There are NO imperial equivalents to the ampere, volt, watt etc.
>>

There are plenty of imperial equivalents to the watt, horsepower and BTU/h being the most common.
>>>

True. A watt is not a uniquely electrical unit. It is the unit for power in any form. But for the uniquely electrical units, volt, ampere, coulomb, ohm, siemens, farad, henry, tesla, weber, there is no Imperial equivalent.

<<
A watt is not a uniquely electrical unit.
>>

Quite right. When, in the mid-nineteenth century the British Association for the Advancememnt of Science were debating what units should be used for electrical measurements, they took great care to define the amp, the volt and the ohm so that one unit of electrical power would be equal to one unit of mechanical power when using metric units.

re (Beranger):

RE: "Tony's assertation that Scotland held a referendum and decided to join with England".

REPLY: It wasn't an assertation. It wasn't even an 'assertion'. It was a question. A rhetorical question, at that. And, arguably, a provocative rhetorical question...quite possibly the first time I have ever been provocative on these boards

RE: "If anyone apart from Tony & myself is interested in this subject, I suggest you read a Scottish history book rather than a English/British one".

REPLY: Maybe one of each would be better

RE: "Even Tony's version hints at the huge divisions in our so-called happy family!"

REPLY: I would maintain that we are family, most definitely. But most families have their squabbles. Similar to brothers and sisters. ("That's my oil". "No it's not, it belongs to all of us". "No it doesn't". "Oh yes it does". "Doesn't". "Does". "Doesn't"...)

RE: "And why snip the score of the '67 match?"

REPLY: OK, it was 3-2 to Scotland. Almost certainly, three fluke goals

Do people really get a pencil and paper out and calculate how much their bill will be (or become) as they switch a light-bulb on?

I mean, really?

And at what point is a recalculation made? (say, for example when a game goes into extra time and they need to recalculate how much money keeping the TV on for half and hour will cost)

Or is this a new "sad" low to which the "metric is better" brigade sink to?

Let's try again:

I regularly buy half a pound of applewood smoked cheddar from Tesco.
Who regularly buys wattages of TV usage in their own home?

> Do people really get a pencil and paper out and calculate how much their bill will be (or become) as they switch a light-bulb on?

Perhaps not when they switch a light bulb on, but it IS useful to calculate electricity usage in this way. For example a year or so ago my father installed six 36 W fluorescent lamps. A few months ago he received an unexpectedly hight electricity bill and was easily able to work out the lamps were not the cause. In fact by calculating the usage of various appliances he was able to dispute the bill successfully.

Watts are a unit of energy/time equal to one joule per second or one volt at one ampere and apply to any type of energy. Where is the sense in using 'British thermal units' when rating a gas heater, kWh when rating an electric heater or 'horsepower' when measuring mechanical energy? If we know the output of a gas heater in kWh we can obviously easily work out it's efficiency compared with an electric one. The SI says quite logically there should be a SINGLE unit for measuring a SINGLE thing.

"The earliest known Laws of Cricket, the "Code of 1744", give the length of the pitch as 22 yards."

Which is exactly 20 m or 20 wands, if based on ancient British measures.


"With allowance made of 1/2 inch from the centre of each crease the distance between the inner edges of the creases was thus 45 inches, that is the length of an ell (or "wand"). "


That in no way proves the wand in pre-Norman times was 1007 mm and the name recycled in the 1700's, nor does the article prove or disprove the existence of a British decimal system in use at the time of the Norman invasion. Recycling old unit names is common.

There may have been a pre-decimal system in use in BC time, but at some time between then and the Norman invasion, the Ancient British people abandoned it for a decimal system with the base unit of wand equal to 1007 mm.

<<Do people really get a pencil and paper out and calculate how much their bill will be (or become) as they switch a light-bulb on?>>

No. But I do consider it for major loads like switching the air conditioner on, or when is it cool enough in the evening to turn it off.

I thought about it in the context of how much might I save if I switched all (or most) light bulbs to compact fluorescent, etc.

Ed, with respect I ralise that a bill can be disputed based upon the bill being generated from a fixed number of 36W lights at a particular time - but switch an Iron on for half an hours ironing and that screws the whole thing up.

I agree that an enormous bill makes someone question it (and use good examples of why such a bill should not be so huge) but you're gonna have to believe me here - people up and down the land do not keep account of what time they switch an appliance on and off over which duration (whilst hoping that that each electrical unit does not make the occasional extra draw on power through inexactitude) in order to produce their own bill to compare it to their bill.

They really don't!

I'll give you an example of one incident "chez stimpy":

Get home,
take Sky out of standby mode.
Switch home cinema on
Watch England (and Wales) win against Australia
Watch other stuff
Put sky into standby mode.
Switch TV off
Go to bed.

Notice that at no time during that process did I make use of a pen and paper. Note also how not once did I read the back of electrical items to find out what wattage they were.

I will admit, though, that when I switched my bedroom aircon on I measured the cooling factor of the room, per sq foot mind, just so that I can find out how many BTU/hr were happening in order to aid my sleep by dreaming of imperial measures.

Flippin eck.

<<
Ed, with respect I ralise that a bill can be disputed based upon the bill being generated from a fixed number of 36W lights at a particular time - but switch an Iron on for half an hours ironing and that screws the whole thing up.
>>

Here is a real life example of checking electricty prices.

We are currently replacing the gas heater in our sitting with a new heater. It is only required for background use when the central heating is not on. One of our considerations was running costs. Basically they are:

Gas:
1.5p (I think) per kWh
£60 annual servicing charge (now required by law).

Electric:
6.5p per kWh
nil annual servicing charge.

Thus, if we use less than 1200 kWh of energy per year, the electric heateris cheaper than the gas heater. However, the maximum rating of the electric heater is 2kW (which is sufficent for background heating). That means that if we run it for less than 600 hours a year, electricity is cheaper. SInce it is only being used for background heat, I decided that electricity was cheaper.

Look out of the window martin.

"Almost certainly, three fluke goals"

You could relive the whole 90 minutes for only £12.99 (£11.28 second-hand)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LLLA/026-8200469-4535664

An iconic Scotland victory over England, all the more sweet as it was the World Cup holders’ first defeat since lifting the trophy. It was the first Scotland team selected by Bobby Brown, and he brought in the uncapped Ronnie Simpson in goal, the oldest ever Scotland debutant at 36 years old. Greig and McKinnon were the enforcers at the back, Baxter and Bremner ran the midfield, while McCalliog (also a debutant) and Law were superb up front. Law and Bobby Lennox gave Scotland a two goal advantage before Bobby Charlton pulled on back. But despite the narrow scoreline, largely thanks to Gordon Banks in the England goal, Scotland were a class apart, and the game will be forever remembered for Jim Baxter’s masterful display, including a keepy-uppy down the left that epitomised Scotland’s superiority. McCalliog scored a third near the end and although England found time for a second it was a memorable victory.




I would point out, however, that it is not that uncommon for Scotland to beat England at football. We've done it 41 times - no-one else is even close (Wales are second with 14)

As a Derby County fan livig in Derbyshire in the seventies, I was able to watch Derby County in the days when they could beat the likes of Benfica 3-0. What a match! Playing for them at that time was a wee Scot called Archie Gemmell, who I maintain scored about the greatest-ever goal scored in the history of the World Cup - not quite enough to take Scotland past the first round, unfortunately. By the way, all us Englanders were totally rooting for the Scots, of course.

P.S. Also regularly watched Jum McCalliog as a Sheffield Wednesday fan when I was at Sheffield University 1966-70

P.P.S. Inverkirkraig is about three miles south of Lochinver; the footpath sign that was amended into miles pointed the way to the strangely-shaped peak of Suilven

Yeah, Derby had a great team in the '70's - and didn't the manager go on to even greater things with Forest?

As a kid, I used to holiday in Clachtol - just north of Lochinver. Lovely part of the country.

Can anyone explain to me the reason behind using kWh for energy rather than kJ or another proper SI unit? I have seen this done in other cases too, mAh for charge, for example.

It is probably historic - and since *everybody* in the industrialised world was using kWh for the measurement of electrical power before 1960 (the year in which SI was born), there was never any pressure to change to kJ.

It is worth noting that calories (which were used in pre-SI days) are now hardly ever used. I used calories at school, but my children use joules.

When they grow up they will be using calories a lot more. Especially if they are female.

;-)

... but they really mean kilocalories!!!!

A lot of countries have begun using kilojoules instead of (kilo)calories for nutrition. Don't feel bad, we're not one of them, either. Besides, that 2000 food calories turns into nearly 8400 kJ.

Yes, you can read the number of kilojoules per hundred grams on the back of almost any food packaging in Britain, along with kilocalories. Notice though that it is kilocalories per hundred grams, not per ounce etc!

...except in Tesco.

;-)

Stimpy wrote

<<
...except in Tesco.

;-)
>>


Th eopnly place where Tesco pushes its luck with using Imperial measures is those areas where loose goods are sold. Go to your nearest branch and check it out. If they did otherwise, they would have all sorts of powerful lobbies on their backs.

Lobbies such at the Diabetic Association don't really give a damn about metric or Imperial measure but they do want the nutritional information on Tesco's products to have the same meaning as the information on Sainsbury's, Asda's, Waitroses etc. Tescos fiddle with that at their peril.

So you are trying to tell me that Tesco products don't have the following on their packets:

Amount per 100g / 3 1/2 oz

I suggest you take a trip to your nearest Tesco before you claim any other "facts" to be true or false.

If they have "Per 100g/3.5oz" when every other supermarket has "per 100g" then any half-wit could see that they are playing silly b*****s with units.

I presume you boycott Tesco?

My wife usually does the grocery shopping and I know better than to tell her where to shop.

By accepting to join Europe, Britain sold 'soul& body' to Brussels !! Now the last british heritage defenders are the USA since they still use inches, yards,miles,oz,lbs, pints, gallons and farenheit... Fortunately the States are an independent country, Britain isn't any longer !! Soon the UK won't be allowed to make any personal choice without asking for brussels agreement ! After the withdrawal of imperial units imposed by the EC, the next step will prabably be the progessive end of 'driving on the left' for every European must feel at ease and at home in any European country !! I guess the £ won't survive as well.... 2 decades ago, Britain was a country typically apart in the world with its routemasters, its red phoneboxes, its imperial measures... and that was what made it so attractive! With Brussels in 10 or 15 years, standardization will make of Britain, an untasty common country like the other European states. Britons should vote for those who think about british sovereignty and culture preservation not for those who for instance want the £ to be replaced by the € and the metrication to be complete.