For the Observer glibly to recommend the splitting of the UK into multiple time zones is disappointing, especially considering the newspaper’s passionate arguments for the continuation of the union less than two months ago (“Let’s see the light and stop putting our clocks back”, editorial).
Having Scotland and England on different times would incur significant costs to business, especially those in the transport, broadcasting and banking sectors. It would also be highly inconvenient to those living close to the border, in either country.
Just as Canada has little choice but to follow the time-related decisions made by the US, I have no doubt that Scotland would feel obliged to follow in England’s steps. It would, however, be a boon to the cause of Scottish nationalism and increase the chances of another independence referendum.
To address the underlying issue, BST in the winter months would bring me, as a resident of the south-east of England, a few minor benefits. Unfortunately they would come at the cost to my nephews, living in the north-east of Scotland, of having to travel to school in the dark for four months of the year. A major disadvantage for a minority should outweigh a minor advantage for the many.
William Hern
Maidenhead
In acknowledging the benefits of the extra hour of daylight in the evening on every day of the year if our clocks were put forward by an additional hour, your leader then expresses sympathy for the Scots in the far north, where about one in 1,500 of the UK population lives, as the sun would not rise there until 10am in the depths of winter.
Would not this sympathy be better placed because at present clocks on GMT result in the sun setting there at that time of year before 3pm? This means that, as well as going to school in the dark, children also have to go home in the dark, a far more dangerous time of the day owing to the higher volume of traffic. Surely, sunset at 4pm would be preferable?
Dr Mayer Hillman
Senior fellow emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, London NW3
A move to Central European Time would not end the practice of putting the clocks back in winter and forward in spring. Supporters of CET regularly quote this falsehood.
An experiment with permanent summer time took place from 1968 to 1971 and was abandoned as it was deeply unpopular, even here in Dorset. Portugal abandoned a four-year experiment with CET in 1996. It was found that children didn’t want to go to school in the dark and on summer evenings people couldn’t sleep as it was still daylight. Far from people becoming “healthier” (another falsehood), it caused stress and depression. Russia is set to abandon permanent summer time this autumn as the Russians couldn’t stand the dark mornings.
Terry Miller
Christchurch, Dorset
Your enthusiasm for CET is misplaced: we do not live in central Europe. Nor are Scots’ doubts about the idea primarily driven by their being further north, but by Scotland’s being further west, with Edinburgh about as far west as Bristol. The whole United Kingdom, with the Irish Republic, pretends in winter that its time is that of an eastern suburb of London and in summer that it is an hour later. Central European Time will have people in Scotland and Cornwall pretending they live in Berlin.
The British experiment of 45 years ago – just keeping summer time all year round – did not conclusively demonstrate safety benefits. The sun produces heat as well as light and pretending that 6am is 7am in winter caused ice-related accidents. As for Scots looking south of the border for the “benefits” of your proposal, they can already look well south, to Portugal. In 1992, that country, sharing a long land border with Spain, decided to join it in the Central European Time. After four years the Portuguese reverted to GMT, fed up with their children being unable to get to sleep in their land of the midnight sun.
Alan T Harrison
Walsall
