Technology0 min ago
English Summer Time.
41 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-Scotland-agrees.html
We could see our clocks permanently wound forward by an hour for good from next year.
But only if Scotland agrees to it.
Why should we consider Scotland, isn't it about time England had a say in things?
If Scotland wants to retain the annual 'on a hour' 'back an hour', fiasco let them, there is no reason why both countries can't be on a different time system, is there?
We could see our clocks permanently wound forward by an hour for good from next year.
But only if Scotland agrees to it.
Why should we consider Scotland, isn't it about time England had a say in things?
If Scotland wants to retain the annual 'on a hour' 'back an hour', fiasco let them, there is no reason why both countries can't be on a different time system, is there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Seems to me there are 4 options, only one of which is being considered by the government, which is ...
1) Double BST - with that option you still have to change the clocks, but we'd be on GMT + 1 for 5 months of the year and GMT + 2 the rest.
2) Constant BST
3) Constant GMT
4) The status quo.
Of all of these I'm for leaving things as they are, on the basis you can't make more daylight and it's daft pretending otherwise. The benefits being touted by Cameron seem dubious to me: significantly more daylight recreation time for a limited time of the year in the south and east = lots more money being pumped into the economy, allegedly. I'm not really convinced.
Constant BST I must admit seems a little more attractive: at least we wouldn't need to change the clocks. Constant GMT seems a bit miserable ...
1) Double BST - with that option you still have to change the clocks, but we'd be on GMT + 1 for 5 months of the year and GMT + 2 the rest.
2) Constant BST
3) Constant GMT
4) The status quo.
Of all of these I'm for leaving things as they are, on the basis you can't make more daylight and it's daft pretending otherwise. The benefits being touted by Cameron seem dubious to me: significantly more daylight recreation time for a limited time of the year in the south and east = lots more money being pumped into the economy, allegedly. I'm not really convinced.
Constant BST I must admit seems a little more attractive: at least we wouldn't need to change the clocks. Constant GMT seems a bit miserable ...
