There’s an infuriatingly misreported story going around now about metrification which is implying in many cases – especially on BBC TV news, the Mail and the Guardian (via PA) – that imperial-only measurements will be allowed from now on and this is some sort of victory. They’ll spin it that way but in fact this isn’t true – it’s not a victory for imperial at all (and quite rightly so), it’s simply continuing the mandate that all tradeable goods must be either metric or dual-measure, with metric primary, beyond 2009.

That’s it. The BBC news story showing some fool of a greengrocer who sells only in imperial and then tries to say that “99% of my customers ask for measurements in imperial, so why should I go metric?” (gee, maybe because you don’t have any metric signage and probably have a metric-“martyr” sign in the window) in fact is simply pointing Trading Standards his way just as much as it would have done before this ruling.

What I found even more annoying, however, was this rather credulous quote from the Guardian’s PA reprint:

Mr Chichester said: “After saving the crown on the British pint, I am happy the Conservatives have persuaded the Commission that it is good not only for international business but for the British people that traditional measurements are kept.

“I just hope there won’t be any more need for Metric Martyrs and that the Government will avoid forcing metrication down the public’s throat.”

Mr. Chichester is, of course, a Tory MEP, so we need to translate this into English. “International business” means “the USA” (who actually use a different imperial system to ours, which they hilariously call the “English system”); “the Conservatives” means “fear of the Daily Mail”; “traditional measurements” means, well, anything; “saving the crown on the British pint” means “allowing to fill up to 568ml with foam” (Euromeasures don’t include the head, so a half-litre in most of Europe has liquid filled up to a half-litre level and then head above that; so often you’ll get more beer than a “pint” over here); and “metric martyrs” means “people stuck in the past”.

(Is it just me, by the way, or doesn’t the term “metric martyr” really grate? After all, it’s what they call themselves, which by rights should disqualify them from using it. In any case, they weren’t threatened with death, just asked to buy scales which had kg printed on them – if you were really interested in providing customer choice rather than just arrogantly imposing your ignorance, you’d have dual-measure scales anyway.)

In fact, metrication is happening anyway over time. Electronic appliances print degrees C rather than Fahrenheit or gas marks and supermarkets have switched completely for the most part (with the exception of Tesco’s 454g mince, but even that only prints the amount of grams) because most people born after the 60s actually don’t understand very much imperial – certainly I don’t, I work in metres, degrees C and Kelvin, litres and ml and kg, I print on A4. I use decimal points and scientific notation, which gives enough accuracy for anyone. I only use inches for measuring computer screen diagonals, and that’s just because it’s still printed on the box; I drink in pints because that’s what my pub sells.

Working with scientific data as I do, I don’t see how the imperial system would make any sense for anything, but it’s what people were taught for a long time and I accept that; but people haven’t been taught it for a while. This EU decision is the right one; by not forcing the time of imperial’s death, it will in fact allow it to happen quietly, as opposed to noisily when the deadline comes. It’s just a shame it’s being reported as yet another yah-boo-Europe-sucks story instead of what it really is, but then the EU is always so prone to misinterpretation.

Also on this subject: Europhobia’s fine piece.

So the election results are in and the only possible coalition seems to be the SNP, the Lib Dems and the Greens, and that gives a majority of two if you toss in Margo McDonald. (We’ll discount the Tories because, well, they’re the Tories and in reality they probably won’t want to help either Labour or the SNP.) The LDs have already rejected a SNP coalition, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they turned turtle after a bunch of concessions; but even then, the Greens might be a very hard act to keep happy. So what are the rules here?

Scotland Act 1998 – Section (3): Extraordinary general elections

(1) The Presiding Officer shall propose a day for the holding of a poll if-

(a) the Parliament resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament, or

(b) any period during which the Parliament is required under section 46 to nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister ends without such a nomination being made.

Hmm. Looking at Section 46, we find

Scotland Act 1998 – Section (46): Choice of the First Minister

(3) The period allowed is the period of 28 days which begins with the day on which the event in question occurs; but-

(a) if another of those events occurs within the period allowed, that period shall be extended (subject to paragraph (b)) so that it ends with the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which that other event occurred, and

(b) the period shall end if the Parliament passes a resolution under section 3(1)(a) or when Her Majesty appoints a person as First Minister.

So this means that if no-one can get their act together by May 31st, we’re having the election all over again. And since this is Scottish politics we’re talking about, I think that’s actually quite likely unless, somehow, all goes well in the negotiations.

And combining this with the voting screwups, I think it’s probably the least worst option too, but what do I know?