Went in to B & Q today looking for some shelves. The sets I saw were 1,500 miles high, 900 miles wide and 300 miles deep, according to the packaging, which is too big for my study.

But amidst the sea of metric measurements, this huge poster greeted me as I entered the shop (the company had clearly sponsored British heroine Ellen MacArthur on her epic voyage):

"WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"


Additional note: Under proposals by Lord Howe and others in: 'A Very British Mess', the above poster would become illegal. Don't anyone here say they weren't warned!

Hi Tony

You might notice that I have been saying (for weeks) that you make up false quotations! Still no comment?????

<<<WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"

Additional note: Under proposals by Lord Howe and others in: 'A Very British Mess', the above poster would become illegal. >>>

Another blatant lie from the man from the party of truth

Andy,

Before you and Beranger suffer from apoplexy through over-hasty and over-the-top accusations of 'lying', you might like to refresh your memory by:

(a) remembering that the government is to ban, with the use of criminal penalties, the display of Imperial units under the 2002 Units of Measurement Regulations, which come into force the moment Brits celebrate the arrival of the 2010 New Year (the first stroke of Big Ben will in fact send out the audible signal that will no doubt be music to the ears of Trading Standards Offiziers), and

(b) looking at the following statements, every single one of them a direct quotation from 'A Very British Mess':

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

“The only solution is to complete the changeover to metric - and as swiftly and cleanly as possible" - Lord Howe, Foreword

“We need to carry through a necessary reform in a decisive and co-ordinated manner” - page 8

“We must standardise on one single system as soon as possible” - page 8

“The metric changeover can be swiftly and painlessly completed…” - page 9

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, require public agencies to be fully metric, phase out Imperial units in property transactions, weather reports, the National Health Service and clothing sizes, set targets and timetables, and enact and enforce any necessary legislation…given full and rapid commitment by the Government, this programme could be achieved within three to five years” - page 9

“We must implement the full adoption of the international metric system from all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes as soon as practicable by taking the necessary action to resolve the current unacceptable situation” - page 11

“The voluntary approach has failed” - page 23

“We must resolve the situation, standardise on one single system and cease using the other system, complete the changeover to the metric system and discontinue the use of Imperial units” - page 29

"Weights and Measures law - like all laws - should be enforced, even if, regrettably, this entails prosecuting unfortunate market traders who have naively allow themselves to be used for a political stunt” - page 34

“It is not in the national interest that irresponsible opposition should continue to obstruct a necessary reform” - page 37

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, empower a cross-departmental authority to help manage the change, require all publicly-funded agencies, including charities, to work towards becoming exclusively metric, set timetables and target dates for completion, introduce any necessary legislation and ensure that it is enforced" - page 38

"...the government is seriously committed to completing the metric changeover, then it must itself set a good example and require (not simply advise) all its Civil Service Departments, Agencies and contractors and all bodies to whom it makes grants or loans to work exclusively in metric units" - page 44

“The existing law on price marking and weighing/measuring loose goods at the point of sale should be enforced. Following the final rejection by the European Court of Human Rights of the appeal by the so-called “metric martyrs”, there is no longer any excuse for local authorities and traders to defer enforcement or compliance action” - page 44

“We must bring advertising explicitly within the scope of the Price Marking Order. It should be illegal to advertise goods for sale giving prices, weights, quantities or other measures exclusively in Imperial units…‘supplementary indications’ should be phased out and then metric units should be the only units permitted in advertisements…” - page 46

“UKMA therefore calls upon the UK Government without further delay to announce the date when the UK’s road signage will be converted to metric…Early 2007 would be a reasonable and achievable target…” - page 47

“The changeover programme will also need to include legislation to revise speed limits, revise various Regulations, including the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions [447 pages of Regulations which stipulate that Imperial units should be used on roads] and the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations to require legible km/h on speedometers…” - page 48

"UKMA believes that the Government should take the lead and make it mandatory for public bodies to use exclusively metric units in weather reports and forecasts, including in their press releases. Wind speed should be shown in kilometres per hour…” - page 49

Tony

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of misquoting from the UKMA proposals. In addition, I would point out that I have constantly stated that I don't support their aims.

I accused you of falsifying quotations in your CMS report.

The quotes in question are

"8.17 Finally in this Section, we deal with what may lie behind the European agitation for Britain to metricate. In 1997, BWMA corresponded with Martin Bangemann, a European Commissioner, and his Head of Metrology. The Metrology boss insisted: “Your Imperial weights and measures give you an unfair competitive advantage in your trade with the U.S. That’s why we must abolish them in your country"

and

"8.18 When BWMA met Department of Trade and Investment officials two years later to protest against prosecutions of traders for selling in pounds, they said: “They’re right. It gives us an unfair competitive advantage and we must strive to eliminate that"

I reproduce my allegations and questions below

"Re: Ivory Tower - Home of UKMA January 25 2005, 9:00 PM


Tony

There are 3 separate versions of the quote allegedly made by Herr Bangemann written out in full in my previous post. One is very different from the other 2.

You state that Vivien has the original quote in writing. May I ask: -

1) Why then is your version so different from his?

2) Has the "quote" used in the CMS report been embellished in any way by you?

3) If "No" to question 2) above, why has Vivien waited 8 years to release the bombshell that the words "abolish them in your country" were used in a written reply from an EC official in relation to imperial weights?

Your report also contains alleged quotes by DTI officials. May I ask: -

1) Why do you refer me to Herr Bangemann for clarification - was he also at the meeting?

2) Can you provide any evidence that your actual "quote" was ever made by a DTI official?

3) How does your so called "quote" relate to trade with the USA, if BWMA and the DTI were discussing sales of loose goods in the UK?"

Secondly, I would point out that

a) UKMA are not the government. UKMA don't pass legislation. Their wish-list is purely that - a wish list.

b) As I have pointed out before, The Units of Measurement Regs are dated 2001, not 2002. I have also asked you to produce some justification for your assertion that it will be an offence to print an unauthorised supplementary indication beside the metric indication. If your assertion was true, a package marked "473ml 1 US pint" would currently be illegal. Can you provide details of any cases that support your assertion?

Tony

You stated that displaying the following banner would become illegal under the UKMA proposals

"WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"

It quite clearly would not. So you lied.

Stick to the facts. No-one on here is going to be fooled by ludicrous claims that certain words would be banned.

I did not see anything about figures of speech in the extracts of the UKMA document that Tony published.

I think we'd be fools not to think that the UKMA would like to remove imperial from all walks of life, whether it be in true form or colloquially.

<<<I think we'd be fools not to think that the UKMA would like to remove imperial from all walks of life, whether it be in true form or colloquially.>>>

I thought that you would take a more realistic viewpoint.

Do you think they would advocate changing the name of what we have on the end of our legs?

And obviously there would have to be a ban on people naming their son 'Miles'

re (Andy): "And obviously there would have to be a ban on people naming their son 'Miles'..."


REPLY: Am I not right in thinking that in Germany - and one other country somewhere - you can only choose your child's name from a list of approved names?

P.S. The most popular child's name in Holland these days is 'Mohammed'

Whatever...

I still can't see any reason to suspect that UKMA propose the banning of certain words.

Why can you respect the argument of the opposition and not continuously twist the truth about what they are proposing?

By the way, it would be interesting to have someone from UKMA on these boards - maybe someone could send an invite?

Martin's already here - and welcome.

BTW - I *have* read cases where groups like UKMA and USMA have said that things like "give him a meter and he'll take a kilometre" should be encouraged.

They've even advocated stuff considering dropping measurements from sayings altogether (inc metric) in an attempt to remove it from vocabulary.

Tony

I note with interest that you are posting again. I also note that BWMA state that it is legitimate for me to question your sources, as long as I moderate my language.

I ask again, for the last time, if will you please produce some justification or corroboration regarding the quotations I refer to above in your CMS report. If not, do you wish to accept that my questions about the authenticity of your quotes (IMHO) undermine the credibility of the organisation?

I would like to also ask BWMA if (in the event that Tony cannot provide any justification or corroboration, or decides to ignore this post) that I can attack the credibility of the report at any future time that he tells us about "quotations" from it.

<<<Martin's already here - and welcome.>>>

Didn't realise Martin was a member of UKMA.

Martin, maybe you could clarify what UKMA proposes regarding the above sign.

Would it be illegal under UKMA's proposals, as Tony says?

<<<BTW - I *have* read cases where groups like UKMA and USMA have said that things like "give him a meter and he'll take a kilometre" should be encouraged.>>>

There is a big difference between encouraged and enforced.

<<<They've even advocated stuff considering dropping measurements from sayings altogether (inc metric) in an attempt to remove it from vocabulary.>>>

How can you "drop measurements from sayings" ? You cannot control what people say.

Why not visit http://www.ukma.org.uk/why/myths.htm

How about asking UKMA if they would support the following statement:

"Advertisers should be free to use either Imperial or metric in their advertisements".

It's called 'free choice'

"Advertisers should be free to use either Imperial or metric in their advertisements".

Tony, you must surely be able to see the difference between requiring goods to be priced and advertised in metric, and banning the use of certain words, as in the Ellen MacArthur banner?

As far as I know UKMA proposes the former, not the latter.

The following is taken from the UKMA site mentioned earlier

<<
If shopkeepers are free to choose their units for pricing goods, price transparency is lost. How can anyone know whether a shop selling bananas at 45p/lb is more expensive than another selling at 92p/kg without using a calculator? Equally, if shopkeepers were able to choose any system with which to measure their goods, you would start seeing bushels, pecks and hogsheads.
>>

I think that this answers Tony's question.

Having just looked at the UKMA site, I will add the following for Tony.

"It is nonsense to suggest that figures of speech have to change."

Andy - If yo go to the BNP site they probably say that they're not racist.

Well blow me! They get my vote now!

From today's Scotsman Diary....

A COPY of an e-mail received by B&Q customer services: "Dear Sir/Madam, My congratulations to you on getting a yacht to leave the UK on 28th November 2004, sail 27,354 miles around the world and arrive back 72 days later. Could you please let me know when the kitchen I ordered 96 days ago will be arriving from your warehouse 13 miles away?"

re (Martin): "How can you compare one shopkeeper selling an item at 45p./lb with another shopkeeper selling the same item at 92p./kilo?".

REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!

Before metrication was begun in the 60s, martin, did we have to take calculators with us? No. The introduction of compulsory metrication has caused the confusion. Make metrication voluntary again and watch the problems and confusion disappear

TOny wrote

<<
REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!
>>

Tony - surely you are aware that the taxes in Nuremburg and in Runnymede are different andf that this will affect the price of beer in the two countries. If you aren't aware of this, I will tell you a little secret - if you go over to Calais, you find that French tax on alcohol is significantly lower than UK tax - about £1 per bottle of wine. Moreover, you can bring back as much alcohol as you car can legally carry provided that it is for person al consumption - honset.

<<<REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!>>>

Who said anything about different products in different countries? We were talking about 2 otherwise identical market stalls next to each other.

re (Andy): "we were not talking about different countries..."

REPLY: Andy, wake up and smell the coffee. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, said this on the radio this week:

"Britain and all the other E.U. states will close their embassies around the world, as they are replaced by a single European foreign service. We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from
each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. There will be a Europe with a single European voice on security matters and a single European voice within NATO".

Unlike Tony Blair, he was telling the truth!

We're *already* one country. Looked at your passport recently?

Berenger: "From today's Scotsman Diary.... etc"


LOL!!!!! ROTFL!!!

Nice one.

<<<REPLY: Andy, wake up and smell the coffee. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, said this on the radio this week:

"Britain and all the other E.U. states will close their embassies around the world, as they are replaced by a single European foreign service. We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from
each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. There will be a Europe with a single European voice on security matters and a single European voice within NATO".>>>

Er, you seem to be going off on a slight tangent here. I think your problem is that your hatred of the EU is such that you oppose anything remotely connected with it. You've just jumped from standardising weights and measures on market stalls to having a single European embassy as if its all part of some big plot!

<<<We're *already* one country.>>>

You seem to overlook the huge cultural differences that exist between different european countries. Just because certain things are standardised across the EU doesn't make us all the same.

<<<Looked at your passport recently? >>>

I can't honestly say I feel any less British because my passport is the same design as a French one.

Something that saddens me greatly about England is that we are lacking in cultural identity. For example the Irish don't care about adopting the euro or metricating road signs because their culture goes far deeper than such things. I would like to think theres more to being English than our currency, using an ancient system of measurements and the design of our passport.

<<
I would like to think theres more to being English than our currency, using an ancient system of measurements and the design of our passport.
>>

Andy, the passport, currency and measurements do not constitute English culture, they symbolise it. If you remove the symbols of the culture, the culture will eventually disappear because it will have no basis on which to support itself.

Bud wrote

<<
Andy, the passport, currency and measurements do not constitute English culture
>>

Bud, you are lucky that SteveH is Welsh. If he were Scots, he might require you to do something like eating a live haggis while a piper played "Scotland the Brave" from a distance not exceeding one metre (or if he was feeling really vindictive, one yard).

Martin, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to clarify?

From Tony Bennett:
"Andy,
Before you and Beranger suffer from apoplexy through over-hasty and over-the-top accusations of 'lying', you might like to refresh your memory by: ..."

Stan: For the benefit of everyone here let me make it quite plain.

None of the extracts presented in the above posting By Tony Bennett from the UKMA report should lead any reasonable person to conclude that the content of that B&Q poster will become illegal or of the slightest interest to Trading Standards, Government departments, Local authorities or EU officials, even if the UKMA recommendations are implemented in full.

If anyone doubts this then I suggest you read the report for yourself in full with a clear and open mind as to exactly what the UKMA are saying and what they are actually calling for.

By all means read Tony's report in the same spirit and judge for yourselves whether he is actually barking up the right tree in his attempts to condemn it.

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to clarify?
>>

Bud, like many Americans you confuse England, Britain and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries. The three that are in Britain are England, Scotland and Wales. The Welsh and the Scots usually take exception to being called "English". (They don't mind being called "British").

"countries" or "nations"?

Hmmmm.....

SteveH wrote

<<
"countries" or "nations"?
>>

When I applied for my E111 form last week, the form definitely said "country". I double checked thiuking that maybe I misread it and it said "county", but there is was, a form prepared by Her Majesty's Government that said "country"

So the UK isn't a country or a nation. It can't be called a commonwealth, and it's hardly a kingdom. It isn't an international organisation, because that's the EU. So then what is it?

Martin said

"The Welsh and the Scots usually take exception to being called "English". (They don't mind being called "British")."

As I have posted on this site before, varous polls exist on Scots identity. An example would be "only 9% of Scots residents describe themselves exclusively as British; 3% as more British than Scottish; 27% as equally British and Scottish; but 28% as more Scottish than British; and 32% as Scottish not British."

Approximately 1/3 of Scots consider themselves "Not British" in all polls of this type. As far as I am aware, 100% of Scots currently contributing to this board dislike being referred to as "British"

Similar opinions exist in Wales, but at lower levels of support for "Not British" (Again, as far as I am aware, 100% of the Welsh on the board do not mind being called British)

I would be interested to see a poll which contrasted Scots/British/European (replace Scots with Eng/Wales/NI as appropriate) where respondents could give an approximation of their own feelings....

ie Beranger (Scots/British/European) 95%/0%/5%.....

Any other takers?

Bud said

"So the UK isn't a country or a nation. It can't be called a commonwealth, and it's hardly a kingdom. It isn't an international organisation, because that's the EU. So then what is it?"

REPLY

Your question is answered in Section 8.10 of the CMS report - available at 1 shilling and 4 old pennies per page from 666 Christianfield, Harlot, Essex*

"8.10 Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England"

SNIPPED


So as you can see, the country of "Britain" has existed since 876AD. Tony's authoritative report says so!

I'll keep this short - he is really talking nonsense in this section!
Countries that are currently not even part of the EC ruled bits of the "UK" in 876AD!!!!





*(address to write to to recieve publication is meant to be a humourous parody, with no offence intended!)

Bud wrote

<<
and it's hardly a kingdom
>>

A "kingdom" is an area that is ruled over by a "king" (or more correctly a monarch). When I last looked checked, the Head of State of the area where I live was Queen Elizabeth II.

Andy - English 100%

I am also British and European of course, but this takes nothing away from my Englishness.

re (Customary Measures Society): "Para 8.10: Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England"

re (Beranger): "So as you can see, the country of "Britain" has existed since 876AD. Tony's authoritative report says so!"

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

REPLY: Britain became 'Britain' after Bryttys (Welsh spelling) or Brutus (Roman spelling) arrived here in 1104 BC, an event commemorated at a monument in Totnes, Devon, where he arrived after sailing from western Greece. Hence giving his name to these islands.

His arrival here was the probable origin of the oak tree in Britain, by the way, as Bryttys brought his priests with him, the 'oke-priests', better known now as Druids. They brought sprigs of oak and acorns with them.

As Beranger may be aware, Britain lost its political independence when the Romans took over in 43 A.D.

Again, as he may be aware from his history lessons, after 410 A.D. the Roman occupation of Britain ended and there was then a 400-year period during which Angles, Saxons and Jutes vied for control of the British Isles with the British, with the Picts joining in a bit from time to time, although they were eventually pushed north and some of them sailed off to America where they became Red Indians. There was no political unity during this period, with the Brits struggling to control their territory and rival Anglian and Saxon Kingdoms vying for control. The Vikings, Norsemen and Danes tried to get a slice of the action as well.

Anyway, back to our tradition of political independence, if you go to Winchester High Street, Hampshire, you'll see an impressive raised statue of King Alfred the Great dominating the street. At its foot, there is a simple plaque with a short inscription: "The Founder of the English Nation". I hope Beranger doesn't know any better!

Bit by bit, the nation of England morphed - to an extent anyway, and by hook or by crook - into the British nation of today.


Q.E.D. (Latin's in vogue these days, and that's the truth)

Yes Bud, as already stated, the UK is most definitely a kingdom.

The thing I like most about being British is being Welsh.

The thing I like most about being Welsh is being British.



==


Funny - Berenger - the number of times I've heard a Scot sportsperson, politician, famous celeb etc referring to themselves as being British.

Like "Such and such a <enter scottish town> is the least populated in Britain"

And many more examples

Tony

Yeesss? But how does your reply reinforce your original point? I read your original point as saying 2 things:-

1) Britain has had political independence since 876AD

But didn't Norway rule some parts of Britain until 1472AD? Or don't they teach that in the Anglocentric version of history you learned? Or is Oslo rule more palatable than Brussels in your mind?

2)Britain has been united since 876AD

Don't make me laugh! Geographically, it has been united (apart from the islands) for a lot longer. Politically, it has been fully united for under 300 years.

Either you have a very different reading of what your original point meant, or you made the usual lazy mistake of "England = Britain"
....................................................................................................................................................

Bryan/Bud

I believe that the UK is defined as a "Constitutional Monarchy" (as opposed to an "absolute monarchy" in most reference books.
....................................................................................................................................................

Steve

Be fair.

I could say that <<insert Scots town>> has the tastiest fish in the Universe, the Solar System, the World, the Northern Hemisphere, Europe, UK, Britain, Scotland, <<insert Scots county>>, or the "fishing" port up the road. (you have to understand local bias to get that one!)

Are you suggesting that me saying "best fish in the universe" means that I primarily consider myself as a citizen of the universe?

Missed the bracket after ("Absolute monarchy") in post above - was not suggesting that constitutional = absolute!

If this report says that Britain is a country, then what is England? Is it a country within a country?

And, once again, what is the UK? Constitutional monarchy refers to the type of government, like democracy, etc.



<<
A "kingdom" is an area that is ruled over by a "king" (or more correctly a monarch). When I last looked checked, the Head of State of the area where I live was Queen Elizabeth II.
>>
But Queen Elizabeth II also rules over Canada, Australia, etc. So all of these countries together would comprise the kingdom, not just the UK.

The United Kingdom has a single parliament. Australia and Canada are soverign independent countries who have their own parliaments and who just happen to have the same head of state as the United Kingdom. If they chose to have a different rule of succession (or to become republics) they can do that without reference to the United Kingdom. Australia in fact had just such a referendum in 1999.

re (martin): "The United Kingdom has a single parliament..."


REPLY: Martin, have you checked this with Beranger and about 4 million fellow Scots? Also, someone has told me about something called the 'European Parliament' which, they tell me, has some sort of decision-making power over the United Kingdom.

P.S. They tell me that the Parliament meets in Brussels some of the time, and in Strasbourg for part of the time, because the Belgians and French couldn't agree where it should be located. Is this true?

I also understand it generates good business for lorry-drivers carting down lorry-loads of paper from one Parliament to another, and raises a healthy few euros in motorway tolls - plus of course contributing to global warming, what with all the petrol used up. Can anyone confirm?

OK, I will reword that

The United Kingdom has its own parliament which has jurisdiction over England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but there is no parliament or any similar body that has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom AND Canada AND Australia.

Bud - The UK is a constitutional monarchic government.

Berenger - What's that big chip doing on your shoulder? And yes, that was a bad example of mine - but you know what I mean.

Beranger,

I researched on the Internet your point about Norway ruling parts of Britain until 1472, and before finding a reference to it I found this, which I pass on for your enjoyment:

'SCOTLAND'


"The term [viz. Scotland] as at present used includes the whole northern portion of the Island of Great Britain, which is divided from England by the Cheviot Hills, the River Tweed, and certain smaller streams. Its total area is about 20,000,000 acres, or something over 30,000 square miles; its greatest length is 292 miles, and greatest breadth, 155 miles. The chief physical feature of the country is its mountainous character, there being no extensive areas of level ground, as in England; and only about a quarter of the total acreage is cultivated. The principal chain of mountains is the Grampian range, and the highest individual hill Ben Nevis (4406 feet)..."

Beranger,

Thank you for directing me to the infomation below about the year in which the British Isles finally rid themselves of the Norwegian oppressors:


"Orkney and Shetland were ruled by Norway until 1472. As well as settling on Shetland, the Norsemen colonised Caithness and Sutherland in what is today's Scotland. We see the evidence in the place names. From the Shetlands and Orkeys, the Norsemen travelled on to the Hebrides and from from there to the Isle of Man, Cumbria, Wales and, particularly, to Ireland. The Norsemen traded with Ireland and established several towns including Dublin and Cork. Among the commodities traded were slaves.

Norsemen also settled on the Isle of Man imparting much of their culture to the island. For example, the the annual open-air Manx parliament, Tynwald, is a Norse meeting and still survives to this day. Fifteen per cent of the male population of the Isle of Man carry the Norwegian genetic legacy, recent studies reveal.

Not all the Norse sea-raiders turned south into the Hebrides. Some of them sailed on out into the Atlantic and from this stemmed the colonisation of Iceland, Greenland and eventually, landings on North America long before Columbus (1492).

Norsemen left archaeological evidence in other places too..."


SNIPPED

re (Beranger): "But didn't Norway rule some parts of Britain until 1472AD?"

REPLY: Something I didn't know until tonight, always happy to learn from a Scot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger):

Or don't they teach that in the Anglocentric version of history you learned?

REPLY: Oooooooh! Gracious me. Next thing we know, German history will be 'Germanocentric', African history will be 'Afrocenttic', Yoruba history will be 'Yorubocentric' and, worst of all, Saudi Arabian and Yemeni history teaching might even be discovered to be 'Islamocentric'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger): "Or is Oslo rule more palatable than Brussels in your mind?"

REPLY: Yes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger): "RE: 'Britain has been united since 876AD' - Don't make me laugh! Geographically, it has been united (apart from the islands) for a lot longer. Politically, it has been fully united for under 300 years. Either you have a very different reading of what your original point meant, or you made the usual lazy mistake of 'England = Britain'"

REPLY: You misquoted me, I trust that occurred accidentally. I referred to Britain having a tradition of political independence since 876 A.D.

I stand by that. In broad terms, British independence grew osmotically from the union of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in 876 A.D. onwards - despite the Battle of Hastings, Bannockburn, Owain Glyndwr, the Jacobites etc.

Try not to misquote me in future, that will reduce the likelihood of your making accusations of people equating England with Scotland.

The Scots prospered as never before once they began the process of union with England, on the accession of King James VI of Scotland to the English throne. Further progress came once the English had expelled the hated Catholic King James II and placed the Protestant King William on the throne.

By the way, the last time a British Sovereign ever vetoed a Parliamentary Bill - i.e. refused the Royal Assent - was over the Scottish Militia Bill in 1713.

Queen Anne wisely wanted to make sure the Scots never again allied themselves with the French against the English. Britain's union with the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, however, may have started the process of unravelling Queen Anne's good work

"and the highest individual hill Ben Nevis (4406 feet)..."

Surely a mountain?

I believe a hill becomes a mounting when its 1000 ft or above.

(is that above sea level or its height?)

<<
The United Kingdom has its own parliament which has jurisdiction over England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but there is no parliament or any similar body that has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom AND Canada AND Australia.
>>

But the queen does (in theory) have jurisdiction over all of them, does she not? The various governors general are simply her representatives.

NOTE: Done Cairngorm and Schiehallion, so far, so still 275 to go

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

Chapter 1:

Mountains, Munros and Marilyns

There's not much doubt that Britain is not a particularly mountainous country. Although the Hackenthorpe Book of Lies maintains that the highest point in the world is only eight feet, most sources of information agree that Mount Everest is over 29000 feet high, with Ben Nevis only 4400 feet. By global standards Britain's mountains are quite insignificant. Many other countries not only have higher mountains, they also have roads, railways, hotels, restaurants, towns and even capital cities that are far higher than any mountain in Britain.

Height isn't everything though. British hills and mountains have many other qualities, which is one reason why there is a long tradition of writing about them and making lists of the highest ones. These lists have been based on the assumption that hills must be a certain height above sea level - usually at least 2000 feet.

This book takes a different approach. It concentrates on hills that are relatively high, compared to the surrounding area, rather than compared to sea level. The main feature of the book is a comprehensive list of every hill in Britain that is at least 500 feet (roughly 150 metres) higher than the land around it. In practice this means at least 500 feet above sea level, as none of these hills start below sea level. Five hundred feet is a completely arbitrary figure of course, just as arbitrary as 2000 or 3000 feet, but I will make some attempt to justify it. To do this requires a brief summary of the existing literature.

In the beginning there was Sir Hugh Munro. He saw that there were lots of mountains in Scotland over 3000 feet high, he saw that they were good, and he set about compiling a list of them. No-one seems to know why he chose 3000 feet, but no-one questions his choice. Most hill walkers are well aware of the result - a book of Munro's Tables that has evolved through several editions. This has led to the increasingly popular sport of Munro-bagging, which involves attempting to climb all the 277 separate mountains over 3000 feet that are listed in Munro's Tables, and are commonly known as 'Munros'. This can be a highly addictive pursuit.

Many of us who enjoy hill walking for its own sake find that the enjoyment of walking is enhanced by having a list to help guide where we go and a long-term target to achieve. There are however a number of reasons why Munro's tables are not satisfactory as a list of British hills:

Munro ignored England and Wales.

Munro did not define what criteria he used for including a hill in his list. He divided the summits into two categories - separate mountains and mere 'tops' - but did not define either.

Munro's tables have been revised several times since they were first published. Some revisions have simply reflected more accurate and up-to-date maps, but some appear to be arbitrary modifications to the original list.

There are many fine hills in Scotland, England and Wales that are less than 3000 feet high.

Next on the scene was J. Rooke Corbett (the fourth person to complete the ascent of all the Munros), who took some of these points into account by compiling a list of all the Scottish mountains between 2500 and 3000 feet high that have a drop of at least 500 feet on all sides. This list is a lot less fun than Munro's, as it leaves no scope for arguments about which summits should be promoted to separate mountain status or relegated to being only 'tops'. Corbett's list was passed on to the editors of Munro's Tables after his death, and there is no record of why he chose 500 feet as the amount required to separate one hill from another. Like Munro, Corbett was concerned only with Scotland.

There are very few summits over 3000 feet high in England and Wales (none at all in Southern Scotland), and relatively few over 2500 feet, and so the subsequent list compilers had to include hills as low as 2000 feet in order to produce worthwhile lists. There have been various efforts published in recent years:

Percy Donald compiled a list of all the hills over 2000 feet in Southern Scotland that have a drop of 100 feet on all sides, together with several further tops that have a drop of between 50 and 100 feet. This list is also published in the book of Munro's Tables.

George Bridge published a book listing all the summits in England and Wales over 2000 feet high, using a formula based on a combination of height difference and distance apart to decide which summits to include. This list was published in 1973, based on one-inch-to-the-mile maps. Recent maps show that it is now well out of date.

More recently John and Anne Nuttall have produced the comprehensive two-volume Mountains of England and Wales (Vol 1: Wales, Vol 2: England). These books list summits over 2000 feet (610m) that have a drop of fifty feet (fifteen metres) on all sides, with walking routes to cover them all.

Terry Marsh has produced guides to the mountains of Wales, the Lake District and the Pennines that are over 600 metres high (about 1968 feet). These are useful as guidebooks, but the lists of summits are not very satisfactory as they are not strictly defined - most of them have at least 30 metres (100 feet) drop on all sides, but Marsh includes numerous other summits of 'topographical merit', which is an arbitrary and subjective concept.

A small booklet published by Chris Buxton and Gwyn Lewis in 1986 lists all the summits in England and Wales over 2000 feet high with a minimum of only ten metres drop all round. This list is accurate, up-to-date and consistent, but includes a large number of insignificant summits of little intrinsic interest.

Writers of guidebooks such as the renowned Alfred Wainwright and Walter Poucher have included lists of prominent and well-known summits, based on no particular criteria. These are excellent and worthwhile guidebooks, but are not intended to be definitive references. A separate booklet listing all the summits named in Wainwright's books was published by John Turner, but this is intended as an index and does not attempt to rationalise any of the details.

In 1989 Eric Yeaman produced a handbook listing all the Scottish hills that have a drop of 100 or more metres on all sides, together with others qualifying by distance instead of relative height. This is an interesting and up-to-date publication, though in my opinion it is awful to look at and appears complicated to use. It has several odd features, such as the listing of hills in reverse order (lowest first), the use of four-figure grid references, and the duplication of hills that happen to appear on more than one map. However, I can not be too critical of it as it comes closest to this book in its concept and content. Apart from its poor presentation its main drawback is that, like all the other lists, it does not cover the whole country, as it ignores hills outside Scotland.

Why then do we need yet another list of British hills? Perhaps the honest answer is that no-one actually needs a new list, but a lot of walkers would probably like one. It is sometimes claimed that an attraction to lists is a sign of arrested personal development. If this is the case then I will try to cover up my own psychological deficiencies by suggesting a list(!) of reasons why publishing this new list of hills is eminently desirable:

None of the existing publications are fully satisfactory or comprehensive. They use different definitions for hills and do not cover the whole of Britain.

There has been a major change in recent years to the maps used by most walkers. In 1988 the Ordnance Survey completed publication of the Second Series of 1:50000 scale maps. Although publication of these maps began in the early 1970s, the changeover to metric contours at ten-metre intervals only occurred with the Second Series. The contouring on the new maps is much more detailed than on the older ones, and shows that much of the data in previous lists of hills is in need of revision.

The encouragement of walkers to explore a wider range of hills in different regions of the country might relieve the pressure of feet on well-known summits in the popular areas. This may not prevent any erosion, but it might distribute it more evenly.

The lower hills can provide more attractive walks in poor weather, especially when the higher summits are obscured by clouds. A low-level walk with views is usually more enjoyable than a high-level one in mist. The smaller hills are also ideal for filling in an odd hour or half day, or for exploring during busy holiday periods when the bigger hills and popular routes tend to get somewhat crowded.

In mountainous areas the lesser hills often make excellent viewpoints for higher ones. For example, some walkers reckon that the finest view of the Cuillin Hills on Skye is from the top of Sgurr na Stri, which is a mere 1630 feet high.

The listing of some hills in Southern England gives hill walkers unfortunate enough to live in that part of the country some constructive walking to do when they're not away in the northern hills. At the same time the list convincingly demonstrates how few hills there are in England and Wales compared to Scotland.

The new list gives those fanati