UKC

More SNP bollocks.

Que?

Didn’t bother me when I lived there. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45733111

Not really, it is important that citizens and voters have a correct idea of the relative proportion of their country, otherwise they will make false assumptions.   For example, we might get a bit less outrage in the Tory press about how high the travel expenses of MPs/MSPs from northern constituencies are if people understood how far they had to travel. The legislation says you can draw the map differently if you provide an explanation of why so if, for your purpose it is more important to show more detail on the land than provide a true representation of proportion and distance you can state that and use a box.    I think legislation is overkill though, some simple guidance to people working on government documents should have been enough.

How your represent things in maps is important.  Maybe we wouldn't have had Brexit if voters understood the true size of the United Kingdom relative to other countries rather than believing the over-large area that it gets under Mercator's projection.

youtube.com/watch?v=lPNrtjboISg&

Scilly too

Maybe, Mr Scott is just fed up explaining why he has/had the highest MSP expenses?

Maybe we wouldn't have all this nonsense and worry about Greenland melting and drowning us all too.

I agree. Barking

Quite.

Just imagine what the map that bloke in the report is holding up would look like. Shetland scrunched into the top right hand corner and the mainland scrunched into the bottom 1/3.

A lose/lose situation.

I do think they should have their own weather forecasts though, rather the the customary 5 seconds at the end where the presenter explains that it's going to be shite as usual in Unst.

I'm from the Islands and I liked being in the box, now all the sailing charts will be messed up, and you will need more., or more likely Shetland will now be missed off   the larger scale charts.

A LibDem kicking up a fuss about nothing in a hope that everyone knows they still exist. As was pointed out on the radio earlier, graphics of Scotland, e.g. stamps, will now be 70% blue, and the islands will appear even more insignificant!

I'd just put the mainland in a box then. Problem solved

How is it going to affect stamps (and if it did who uses stamps often enough to care).   It is about maps in official Scottish Government documents.  The Scottish Government does not issue stamps.

The guy's point is that this mapping convention consistently gives people a distorted view of how close the Shetland is to the mainland and this is important in government documents which set out policies which will affect Shetland.

I remember when I was about 6 and I was amazed to discover that the Isles of Scilly were not where they are drawn, in a box just off Land's End. From that age this has been a non issue.

So I guess I applaud this, on behalf of all those 0-6 year old's reading government documents.

Shows your mentality more than anything else, since it was a Lib Dem!

Anyway, bollocks or not, I like the idea.

Yes, it'll make the land look less prominent (though the mainland will not all be scrunched in the bottom third as suggested, it'll occupy significantly more than the lower half, Shetland isn't that far away!)

And that's good, as it's accurate, and more properly shows the nature of the archipelago we live on.

People talk about the 'mainland' as if Great Britain was huge. It's quite a big island, but it's tiny compared to the real mainland of Afro-Eurasia.

See my post on the manchester clapping thread about how students graduate from nonsense at their student’s unions to nonsense in grown up politics.

The idea that a law is needed over how to draw a map is preposterous.  On some maps it is appropriate to show everything in a geographic layout, and in other maps boxing makes sense.  

It's utter utter shite.

It's just rules for public bodies, you aren't going to get nicked for drawing a map the "wrong" way!

Public bodies have to adhere to all sorts of rules about what they can and can't say or show; whether or not it's a good idea is one thing, but I don't see it as much different from requiring them be objective on other matters.

"it does give bodies a get-out clause if they provide reasons why a box must be used."

Is "We draw Shetland in a box because not doing so conveys less information in the space available" allowed?

(Do the Scilly Isles get huffy about this too does anyone know?)

I know, I did read the article.  But the idea that wasting time creating a law is the way to tackle this becomes even more ridiculous when the law is applied only to a small subset of society.

To associate this with objectivity is in my view not appropriate.  

No 2D map of a spherical planet is truley objective.   No map even of a small area (ie where protection doesn’t matter) is really objective - more is left off any map I’ve ever seen than is put on it.  

This is because a map is intended to show some specific piece or pieces of information.  The appropriate choices of projection, inclusion/ommisision, boxing, style and formatting, scale and scale violations etc all derive from what information the map is meant to display.  

You can no more sensibly blanket legislate any of these choices than you can legislate the weather.

In otherwise nothing changes except for a lot of time and effort pissed away on a pointless law that will change nothing.

What about the Falklands?  This is going to get really daft once we have a sovereign territory on the moon...

Probably, if it's relevant to the map's intended purpose.

Is anyone actually getting huffy? There was a perceived problem, they've tried to deal with it; that's pretty much what local representation is for. (I can barely believe I'm defending Tavish Scott, but hey, no point in being partisan for the sake of it!)

The same reasoning should be valid that way too, but I doubt the Scilly Isles are going to appear on many maps published by public bodies in Scotland. And it'd probably politically unacceptable down that end, as it would risk making London look less significant.

Definitely not part of Scotland.

Of course it is, or at least South Georgia is.  The port is even called Leith for goodness sake.

And one of those bits of information is now "Shetland is not irrelevant". Why does that bother you?

That's probably why it isn't blanket legislation!

Do you feel the same way about legislation designed to make other underrepresented or oft-ignored groups more prominent?

Well someone is sufficiently to make laws about it.

Wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leith,_North_Dakota

It doesn’t bother me.  Why are you reading so much in to my comments?

Arguably not boxing Shetland makes it so much smaller it appears more irrelevant.

I would if it was so bloody stupid and ideologically driven that in the eyes of many it reduces the prominence of said groups, and if it sought to legislate things the creator of the law has no apparent understanding off, to the detriment of all the people who have to use the items being legislated.

Okay, as you may have noticed also with my comment about the moon, I am *extrapolating*.  

Does the law say you have to draw Shetland at all?  I'd imagine it would just get missed off more often now.  Like St Kilda.

Edit: The requirement is below.   I assume this means it only applies to maps of the whole of Scotland so if you miss off St Kilda (thus making a map a map of something less than Scotland), you are OK. Phew.

Or, if in a box with lat and long indicated, doesn't that give the geographical location "accurately and proportionately"?

"The Shetland mapping requirement is that, in any map of Scotland, the Shetland Islands must be displayed in a manner that accurately and proportionately represents their geographical location in relation to the rest of Scotland."

Thanks for digging it out.

Faced with that I would have a map of most of Scotland with the usual boxed inset map of Shetland and a second, small inset map showing a zoomed out view of it all that is accurate and proportionate. Some feint guide lines would come from a feint/dashes box surrounding Shetland inside the 2nd inset to the box on the usual inset.

You used the words 'nonsense', 'ridiculous', and 'pointless', which do rather suggest you have some feeling on the matter. I appreciate that, like me, you're actually just killing time on the internet doing something pointless and unproductive, probably as an avoidance technique against something else you should be doing, so no worries.

Uh, or maybe it does bother you?!

OK. In that case, Scotland has NO sovereign territory, as it is not a sovereign nation. This legislation applies to areas dealt with by Scottish public bodies, so does include Shetland, but not the Falklands, Luna, Olympus Mons or Aldebaran...

My Shetland generally only goes in a box when the weathers bad. 

I did and I think it is a ridiculous nonsense.

However you asked me why I had a very specific problem: And one of those bits of information is now "Shetland is not irrelevant". Why does that bother you?

That bit of information doesn’t bother me.  Using legislation to tell cartographers how to do their job bothers me.  Especially when - as I and others have said - in the eyes of many the exact opposite of the intended information will be displayed, by reducing Shetland down to a blot on a postage stamp.

For sure but I normally learn something in the process...

Indeed - but if Scotland should do this, shouldn’t all nations?  Following this line of thought rapidly shows why politicising cartography to this level is ridiculous.

OK, sorry. I phrased that badly; I was trying to say that it does convey information (whether or not you think it does it well, or should), and about something which is - let's face it - probably going to have no effect at all on you, and probably won't make anyone else's life perceptibly worse in any way.

It's very clearly about making the statement that the outlying, smaller islands and their unique challenges tend to be overlooked or ignored, and pretty obviously is part of something a lot bigger than maps. If people have made enough fuss to have their MSP raise it in parliament, it obviously matters to them.

Isn't the whole purpose of having regional governments to tailor things to suit their own area? They'd be completely pointless if every area should just do the same.

If you follow it into total fantasy land like that, I agree. But that's a total straw man, irrelevant to the reality of it - it's a tiny piece of minor legislation in a small region in a small-to-medium country off the coast of western Europe. It simply doesn't include the Falklands or the Moon and it isn't going to; it can easily be revisited if the situation changes dramatically.

Anyway, I have to do that thing now. Perhaps we can revisit this when there are some maps affected by it, and see whether it's really so stupid or awful? Although I doubt it'll be news by then.

In the meantime, you are of course free to lobby your local MSP to have it repealed (if you are registered to vote anywhere it applies).

Well, except for anyone else who wants to get any information from a map affected by this except for this distance to the mainland.

Why is it a total fantasy land?  Do no other countries have small, outlying territories which some people feel are marginalised?  What makes Scotland so special?

As I’ve said elsewhere I doubt much will change in reality.  What is stupid and preposterous is going to the effort - and cost - of creating a totally pointless and basically ignorable law to make some political point.  This is not the purpose of the law.  

I didn’t quote the rest of your post as you’re repeating yourself.

You still haven’t addressed the point I am loath to repeat again that this change is in part preposterous because it makes the place much smaller and less significant looking on a map, indeed just a blot on a postage stamp.  

OK, examples please, with reference to a map you're confident won't fall under the exception specifically put in place to avoid this. There's a Swedish expression which transliterates as "don't paint the Devil on the wall" which seems appropriate here - you seem to have decided this is going to be implemented badly, and I don't know why.

Specifically the notion that this should include the Falklands or the Moon is total fantasy. They aren't part of the region concerned, and Scotland isn't big enough for this to shrink the land to insignificance when including the furthest islands.

I'm also slightly loath to repeat this, but it doesn't. It shrinks the rest of the map by about a third,  emphasises the archipelagic nature of the country a bit more, and more clearly shows the remoteness of Shetland. OK, you don't like that and I do, but please don't say I haven't addressed it just because you don't agree. And there's a specific exemption for when this actually is a problem.

Yep, I'm repeating myself. But I'm not the only one!

You again make my point that this law is largely going to achieve nothing as the exemption means that maps will continue to be drawn as the cartographer finds appropriate for the maps purpose.

Because it’s an attempt to make a political point by messing with something non political.

I don’t think you’ve understood my posts.  Perhaps I was not clear - although I though my previous posts were.

Sorry I missed that post - a reply to another poster.  I see it now.  If it shrinks the rest of the map it shrinks Shetland as well - and that’s a linear third which means by area it’s shrunk by about 44% - so it does look quite a lot smaller.  Believe it or not I have looked at a load of maps of both sorts.

We disagree on this point - do you think perhaps a lot of other people will also have my perspective and not yours?  I’m not the only one with my perspective on this thread.  I’m not saying either is the majority perspective.  Do you therefore see why it’s daft for one particular political view to dictacte what should happen?

... yep, or I hope so ...

... nope, as they'll now have to consider this, and make the map to true scale where there isn't a good reason not to. Again - I'm pretty sure this is about trying to change attitudes, not really about maps. There's a wee bit more quoted in the P&J article here:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/islands/shetland/1437399/shetland...

Maps have always been political!

But it'll look more isolated (as it is), and be more noticeable (as it's then the main focal point at that corner of the map). Size isn't everything, as my wife reassures me.

I imagine opinion is split. I'm also pretty confident most people actually don't care, or at least won't by this time next week.

No, because not changing it when the matter has been raised is also dictating what should happen. And politicians really can't only legislate for things which everyone agrees on, and I'm really not keen on them avoiding even unpopular decisions when they're good ones.

Overall, though, I see this as something which costs most people nothing and makes some people a bit happier. And I think we should do a lot more of that sort of thing, inside and outside of politics.

Seems to add fuel to the idea that the Shetlands could become part of Norway which comes up every few years. Having escaped their box maybe they can escape from Scotland too

You do see it that way because your perception of the map is that way inclined.

It seems clear that not everyone sees it that way. Unintended consequences abound from right-on ideas with different perspectives.  As I get older I come to appreciate more and more the unintended consequences of change.

I prefer to let each map be made in the way best suited to that map.  Which is what map makers tend to do.  They don’t need heavy handed legislation to do this.

What they should really do is rotate the compass rose inside Shetland’s box so it can be shoved into the Moray Firth allowing a more compact / zoomed map...

I didn't mean me - I like it but it makes very little difference to me; I meant the Shetlanders who wanted it changed and were bothered enough to get their MSP on the case.

Are you quite sure you aren't just getting more set in your ways..?

I think everyone does - it's just that, for example, Tavish Scott is seeing the maps as having additional purposes you aren't seeing, or at least placing more importance on those aspects than you are. Lack of change can also have unintended consequences.

Heh!

I don't quite understand why cartography needs legislation to tell it the most appropriate way of displaying information. As it only applies to Scottish government documents, why not just create a guideline that, on Scottish government maps, Shetland shouldn't be inside a box? No law required.

Will it still be Hard Severe?

Good point, well made

I think to be clear, the Law referred to is the Scottish Islands bill - which is about a whole raft of matters relating to the Islands. The rule about the box is just something referred to within the bill, and applies only in to use in Scottish official documents, and with an option to retain the box should there be a good reason for it.

But yet again - the headlines make a meal of it.  Making it sound like someones had a whole new law put in place just for the boxing off of the Shetlands.

That wouldn't do Norway's maps any favours

My Norwegian friends assure me Shetland is part of Norway already.  Something to do with Scotland not paying for it?

And if we are talking about proportionality what about showing Rockall? It's part of Scotland too (amusing auto correct; it came up with Rick Allen when I tied to type  Rockall).

What about St Kilda?

No but they do get "huffy" about "Scilly Isles" when its the Isles of Scilly

Are the populations of St. Kilda and Rockall concerned that they are being overlooked and sidelined, and that the particular challenges they face are not well understood in the rest of the country?

Doesn't matter if they are concerned or not, if its a factor for Shetland then it's a factor for other islands too. 

Yes, Shetland should be in a box and they should pay for building it.

"Build the box, build the box"

Hence why its in the Scottish Islands Bill.  Its not called the Shetlands Bill.

That video is bollocks.  It makes the assumption that the Earth is a sphere.

Nobody lives on Rockall.

I don't see why this is a big deal.  They are basically saying that,  in official documents, the relative position of Shetland should not be distorted unless you explain why you are choosing to do so.  So if you think it is important to use the page area efficiently so more detail of the land area can be seen you just need to write a couple of words and put Shetland in a box.

The law only applies to Scottish Government reports, not stamps, navigation charts and so on.

The way this minor and fairly reasonable rule is being exaggerated and distorted to score points against the devolved Scottish Government is very similar to the way reasonable regulations by the EU get exaggerated and distorted to score points against membership of the EU.

Why's that? Are you genuinely unaware that St. Kilda and Rockall have no permanent residents?

I think the Scottish Parliament, by removing Shetland from a box, were trying to help Donald Trump. If he saw it in a box, He'd think it was a wall and want to know where they got it from.

More seriously, isn't it very well understood that an island or area in a box on a map indicates the place is not geographically where is it is shown to be.

Is there really anyone in the UK who thinks Shetland is a just a couple of miles north east of John o' Groats?

Dave

So your criterion is that the island should be inhabited to matter. So should all non inhabited islands be missed off the Scottish map. Or just those that don't fit your mode of cartographical representation?   Do you think Rockall has no economic or political importance to Scotland and the U.K.  as a whole, no role in determining the international status of Britain's offshore tights and EEZ etc ? There used to be a rather rude song that found play with the name ; we may have lost our empire but we've got Rockall (after Britain established claim). 

Many people in the UK haven't got the faintest clue where any of the islands are. Sadly, geography at schools doesn't involve knowing where places are, and few people have any reason to know where the Scottish islands are. 

I think there are probably a lot of people who don't give it any thought at all.

But even that aside, presentation matters.

Even when you know something, the way you think and feel about it depends on how you see it and what it's associated with. Otherwise, marketing pretty much wouldn't work.

I do recall in first year secondary school drawing north and South Island New Zealand side by side to save space on the page ... 

I got a see me in red ink - didn’t make that mistake again  

Oh the innocence of that statement, there are people in the U.K. who don’t know London is the capital, as for Shetland ... is that even a place (in a TOWIE accent)

The good news is that if you have a reasonably square aspect ratio map and you size it to include the whole of the Scottish mainland and Shetland it will include Rockall (and the other non-inhabited islands).   So it is going to happen anyway.

The bad news is that Rockall is so tiny you'll never see it at that scale.

Too wee, too stupid? I never thought I would hear that one again!

Seriously though I can't see what anyone has against Shetland getting out of it's box on official Government stuff. Anything that helps those in and working for government appreciate the extent of the country is a good thing.

The point for me is that the scale of the map is reduced and thus resolution and information are lost. Why can't the government just leave it up to authors to decide how they wish to portray Scotland? In some cases it is better to show the positions of all the Northern and Western Isles on their correct positions but in many instances I think it probably better to use the area of an A4 page to present as much detail as possible.

I agree it's trivial in the grand scheme of things.

I suspect that this is aimed mainly at those wall maps people have in offices. 

I hope this does not set a precedent. Dutch maps with the Caribbean islands shown at the proper distance would be slightly annoying.

Yes. 

And if the residents of the Falkland Islands insist on equal treatment, then it will just degenerate into farce...!

Everyone's focusing on shetland here, but really this is all about Orkney. I distinctly heard Nicola Sturgeon saying "nobody puts Yesnaby in the corner"

Unfortunately you are, sadly, correct. Though even if some folks don't where Shetland I'd hope people would know what a island in a box meant, but then again I'm probably hoping for too much.

Dave 

I think it is helpful that this indicates that in Inverness I am not in the North of Scotland but not even half way up.  

With credit to Radio 4 (first part).

If the Proclaimers were on Shetland and decided to walk 500 miles they'd be in Newcastle.

Of course any real fan would know they walked 500 miles and 500 more, to walk a thousand miles and fall down at your door.

Which would put them somewhere around the Scilly Isles.

Since this means they can walk on water, it depends which way they headed.

They could be in Bergen before Newcastle if they head East instead, or Gothenburg still before they hit the magic 500.

Dublin's just over 500, and Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Reykjavik, and Brussels are all nearer than the Scilly Isles (736 miles). Berlin and Paris are still comfortably under the 1000, Prague's OK, Helsinki pips it, but they can't quite reach Warsaw (1006).

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

It's no wonder the Northern Isles were such a hub when boats were the main method of long-distance travel.

I wonder, though, whether the Proclaimers might be able to turn corners sometimes, rather than just be stuck going in a straight line?

If you check their hits you find they are capable of Spinning Around In The Air.

True, true.

They do still have to correspond by mail with America, though, so range is definitely a problem.

You used to be able to get a T-shirt showing precisely that.