The lil' scribbler arrives

Six days late. Less than three hours of labor. A pound lighter than his older brother.

Finally, the new lil' scribbler has arrived! He made his grand entrance ten days ago, on Mother's Day (traditionally called Mothering Sunday here) in the United Kingdom. And, thank goodness, he came without all the medical drama his big brother made us endure.

Frankly, the lil' scribbler's entrance was . . . not to put too fine a point on it . . . boring.

Recovery from any British birth requires a proper cup of tea.

Wonderfully boring!

The whole labor and delivery thing was a breeze. {Ed.'s note: Easy for you to say. Try giving birth.} Kate's first contractions started around 1:30 in the morning. Her body decided to skip the introductory contractions. Instead, she dove straight into the full-on powerful ones. We waited an hour or so and then headed off to the hospital.

The maternity ward was packed. Who knew 2:45 am on a Sunday was such a popular time to deliver? In truth, the maternity ward was simply so understaffed that they couldn't even operate an entire wing of the ward. Understaffing is one of the National Health Service's not-so-secret methods of cost controls. Anywho, during our drive to the hospital they called and sought to redirect us to another hospital across town. But we missed the call — the phone was tucked away into Kate's bag — and we showed up at the hospital to crash the party.

Sleeping while momma takes a shower.

They made room for us, grudgingly.

We didn't take up much of their time. Our new baby boy, Finley, was born roughly an hour and a half later. Nor did we take up much of their resources. Unlike in the U.S., where most births are overseen by obstetricians, most births in the U.K. are overseen by midwives. Our midwife managed everything on her own. If there had been any complications, further medical staff was around. But generally the approach to birth here is less "medical" and more "natural," though circumstances or personal preferences can of course dictate otherwise.

Jackson met his new little brother, Finley, for the first time.

Kate's mom ("Grammar") holding Finley in the hospital.

In general, if it's a mother's second (or third, fourth, etc.) baby, they aim to send momma and baby home from the hospital within six to twelve hours. This has shocked some of our U.S. friends, who spent a day or two in the hospital after giving birth. But so long as both the mother and baby are doing well, and the baby is nursing successfully, they urge you to go home.

Ready to go home.

But going home doesn't mean you're suddenly on your own. A midwife comes to your home the next day to check on the baby and mother. If all is well, another midwife visit is scheduled for two days later. After two or three further days, you see a midwife again when the baby gets a poke for routine blood screenings. Several days later, you have another evaluation to make sure all is well and the baby is growing as expected. At that point, your medical supervision is handed over from midwives to a "health visitor," who makes periodic visits to babies and toddlers and follows their development. The usual vaccinations and other routine medical checkups are passed over to a general practitioner (GP), your family doctor.

Born early in the morning and home in time for dinner. We let Jackson, his devoted big brother, pick the clothes we bought for Finley to come home from the hospital.

I've been asked several times whether Finley, having been born in England, is a British citizen. He is not. Like the vast majority of countries in the world — including all of Europe and nearly all of Asia, Africa, and Oceania — the U.K. grants citizenship on a jus sanguinis basis (i.e., by "right of blood"). That means one parent must be a British citizen, or at least that immigrants like us need to be "settled" and have permanent residence status. However, if or when Kate and I gain U.K. citizenship in a few years, our children can also gain citizenship at the same time. Additionally, if Finley continues to live in the U.K. until he's ten years old, he becomes eligible for citizenship regardless of the citizenship status of his parents.

So, if the lil' scribbler isn't a British citizen, is he an American? Yes. In the U.S., like much of the Americas, citizenship is granted automatically on a jus soli basis (i.e., by "right of soil"), so anyone born within American territory is granted citizenship. Finley doesn't qualify on that basis. But generally speaking, the U.S. also grants citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens living abroad, as long as a few minor conditions are met. Finley (and his parents) check those boxes.

When road signs bemuse

Far be it for me, a mere colonist, to quibble with the way the English use English. But this road sign in Bristol distracted me so much that I nearly hit a parked car:

Are they zombies?

Somebody in the city government proposed this sign.

            Worker:     "Pardon, guv'nor, maybe we should use, 'Dead Slow Children'?"

            Boss:         "Well, Nigel, let me give it a think. What are our other options? I need to make sure we bloody hell
                              don't do a cock up."

            Worker:     "Me and my mates have been working on this for a fortnight. We're knackered. If we have to go
                              back to the drawing board it'll all go to pot. We think 'very slow' is rubbish. Doesn't pop, y'know?
                              'Extremely slow' was too bloody long. And those 'Twenty's Plenty' signs are poufy, amiright?"

            Boss:         "Cheerio! 'Dead Slow Children' is scrummy. Any punctuation we could use to make it more clear?"

            Worker:     "Blimey, what is 'punctuation'?"

And we have moved to . . .

Our expat journey continues!

We hadn't planned on moving. At least, not yet.

{Ed.'s note: That implies you actually have a plan.}

Okay, true enough, we don't have a plan. But when we first moved overseas, back in June 2013, we assumed we'd be in Scotland for at least three years. Kate's contract with the University of Glasgow was for three years, and at the end of those three years — i.e., next June — our toddler would have turned five and been ready to begin school. We figured June 2016 would be an excellent time to take stock of our lives and see how this expat adventure was working out.

Then Kate developed a crush.

Actually, she's had the crush for a long time. Years. Since before we ever moved overseas, she had developed a crush on a small veterinary diagnostic company. (I've been assured the crush is only for the company, and not for its owner.) She loves their fantastic work and clientele. She loves that although they are a small business, they nonetheless have (inter)national leaders in the field of anatomic pathology who produce good scholarship and give talks at major conventions. She loves that they're so well respected in the field that the Royal Veterinary College in London sends its pathology residents to spend as much as a year getting training at the company. She loves that the job advertisement indicated baking skills were not required, but definitely a bonus.

She really loves that they all stop work every day and have tea, and every Friday is "cake Friday." And that she'll get her own mug with her name on it, although not until she's been there long enough to earn it.

It's the little things.

Our new home, a nineteenth century Victorian row house. (Photo by leasing agency.)

{Ed.'s note: Okay, get on with it. Where is this new job?}

I thought you'd never ask. We have moved to    .  .  .
                                                                                                            Bristol, England!

Bristol on map of Britain (link)

We left bonnie Scotland for the auld enemy, England. Some of you might think we've simply moved south within the same country (the United Kingdom). In the view of many Scots, though, we left one country and moved to another. I'm glum about leaving Glasgow and the lovely nation of Scotland. We truly loved our time there.

But a new city beckoned.

And what a city it is. According to frequent rankings and polls, Bristol grades as the U.K.'s best city to live in. It's funky. Artsy. Home of renowned street artist Banksy. Home of multiple Oscar-winning studio Aardman Animations, which created characters like Wallace and Gromit and Shaun the Sheep. Home of the illustrious Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, founded by Sir Laurence Olivier and whose alumni include Jeremy Irons, Gene Wilder, Olivia Colman, Patrick Stewart, Stephen Dillane, and the incomparable Daniel Day Lewis. Home of iconic engineering marvels, like the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Home of numerous festivals, including, because the area is so gorgeous, an international hot air balloon extravaganza.

Bristolians get roughly half the yearly rainfall as Glaswegians. And Bristol enjoys approximately 360 more hours of sunshine per year than Glasgow, which equates to a full month more of sunny days. When you're coming from damp Scotland, these aren't insignificant bonuses.

Bristol's best draw, to my mind, is its ideal placement to explore so much of England and Wales. We're on the threshold of: the Cotswolds; the wilds of southern Wales; the rolling countryside of Somerset, with its cider and Cheddar (as in, the actual birthplace town of Cheddar cheese); the moors of Devon; the beaches of Cornwall; and UNESCO world heritage sites like Bath and Avebury and Stonehenge.

With our 19th century Victorian row house, we've seriously upped our Britishness. The house comes complete with ten-foot ceilings, original stained glass, wide-plank floors, and, well, not one goddamn closet. Moreover, we now live within a stone's throw of three sporting complexes — lawn bowling, grass court tennis, and a cricket pitch. It's as though we've moved into a British cliché.

Our kitchen, as lived in by our predecessors. (Photo by leasing agency.)

Our move to Bristol has forced a painful but necessary scantiness in blog posts here. For the past few months, we've been preoccupied with the move — finding a place to live, figuring out schooling for Jackson (kids in England start at age 4, unlike in Scotland where they start at age 5), packing boxes and arranging movers, and on and on. Plus, ever since we saw our move on the horizon, we spent every available day in Scotland traveling and sightseeing and absorbing as much as we could. I wanted to devote time to experiencing Scotland instead of writing about it.

{Ed.'s note: Now that you've left, will you no longer blog about Scotland?}

Heck, no! I have oodles and tons and reams and gobs of fascinating stuff in Scotland still to write about. Truly, years worth. Especially at my current snail's pace. Indeed, Scotland will still feature very prominently here. I loved it and have much more to share. England and Wales, however, will now become major players here, as well.

Kate at 5.5 months pregnant with the new lil' scribbler.

Our carpe negotium (i.e., seize the job) move to England has once again stretched our boundaries and expanded our expat lives. While our first move, to Glasgow, always had a possible deadline of three years, this second move, to Bristol, feels like a long-term stay. We're only three to four years from getting our U.K. citizenship, which is a huge goal we're eyeing. That'll give us a multitude of options and advantages for our futures, particularly for Jackson and the new baby on the way. A passport from the U.K. provides European Union citizenship (assuming the U.K. doesn't boneheadedly vote to leave in an upcoming referendum), as well as the many perks of being members of the Commonwealth.

After two and a half years, expat life is still relatively new to us. Living outside the U.S. for a few years seemed adventurous; we were ready to color outside the lines. Now that we're earnestly contemplating getting foreign citizenship? Well, we've gone from scribbling on the page to drafting an entirely new picture.


UPDATE: I've gotten a few inquiries about whether we'd give up our U.S. citizenship. Getting U.K. citizenship doesn't require giving up U.S. citizenship. We have no intention of relinquishing our U.S. passports.

Scotland's plastic bag charge, one year later

Yesterday marked Scotland's first anniversary of requiring retailers to charge customers five pence (5p) for plastic bags. And generally speaking, the news is outstanding.

Over the past year, the number of plastic bags handed out by retailers in has plummeted by approximately 80%. These statistics come from the main supermarket stores, such as Tesco, Waitrose, Morrisons, and so on, though many other retailers have also slashed their plastic bag use. At present, no good figures are available from retailers other than the grocery chains.

This 80% reduction indicates a tremendous drop, and it's a huge victory against pollution and carbon emissions. Eliminating roughly 650 million bags per year is amazing, quite frankly. (Actually, once you calculate the amount of plastic in reusable bags and so-called "bags for life," the reduction in plastic is actually closer to 500 million. Still, that's fantastic.) Scotland has followed the lead of Northern Ireland and Wales, which both showed a similar drop in plastic bag usage. England, for its part, began its own 5p charge earlier this month, and we can assume it'll have similar statistics.

While it's an accomplishment to be cheered, not everything is perfect. As I noted last year, the retailers saw an 80% drop within the first month of the new charge. After folks adjusted in the first month, however, no further percentage reduction has been achieved. Now, to be reasonable, we all might occasionally forget our reusable bags and need a plastic bag or two in a pinch. But that doesn't account for anywhere near the 150 million plastic bags given out by the grocery stores this past year.

In other words, there remains a portion of the population undeterred by the 5p charge and who see no reason to change. These are hardcore users of the bags, and changing their behavior will be the key to future reductions.

So, while the 80% reduction is terrific, there's room to improve.

With England at last on board, the U.K. finally has started to catch up with the rest of Europe.

Reusable shopping bags from Waitrose, a major British grocery chain.

Half his life abroad: a third culture kid?

Is he a third culture kid yet? He meets the criteria: a significant part of his developing years — actually, half of his lifetime so far — has been spent in a culture different from his parents' culture. That means the culture of his parents (American) and the culture of his new nation (Scotland) are merging together for him into a third culture.

Definitionally, he's a third culture kid.

But I'm not quite so sure.

Jackson turns four today. These past several weeks he has been laser-focused on the idea of being four instead of three, an event so exciting to him it's akin to a teenager finally old enough to drive. Counting down the days. Making doubly, triply, thousandly sure he'll receive presents. And a cake. And balloons. A glorious vision shines in his mind which I'm not sure we can meet, though we're trying.

Meanwhile, his birthday obsession has led me to reflect on his progress in our cross-cultural life. Is Jackson truly cross-cultural? His memories of the United States are vague at best; the States are simply a faraway place where the rest of his family lives. If he knows any culture, it's Scotland's.

But how much culture does a toddler — eeek, he's now a "preschooler" — really encounter?

Is Jackson really a third culture kid?

As it is, the American and British cultures are pretty darn similar. Scotland is slightly more exotic than England, though our urban life in Glasgow is mostly indistinguishable from urban life in the rest of the U.K. While the cultures differ in some aspects, Americans and Brits share a common language, a long and cherished history, and many values, mores, and customs. Television, film, fashion, music, sports, and numerous other areas of life intersect with ease. For an American, probably only Canada feels more similar.

America and Scotland do have distinct cultures. No argument there. But as a second culture for Jackson to assimilate, Scotland has charming variations rather than glaring contrasts.

More significantly, Jackson spends the overwhelming majority of time with us, his American parents. Although we get out and about nearly every day, travel the country regularly, and embrace opportunities to expose him to all manner of activities, he still encounters almost all life with our guidance and explanations. His view of Scottish culture gets skewed through our American prism and frame of reference.

As he gets older and spends more time away from us — increased time at nursery, then kindergarten and primary school — our influence will recede a bit. He'll have real friends and peer groups. Sports teams. Teachers and coaches. Music lessons. Growing exposure to television. Gradually he'll slip out from our de facto bubble. For now, though, our inevitable filter stifles many of the cultural differences that he may experience later.

Both the mildness of cultural differences, as well as the vast parental influence we wield, give me doubts about how much third culture experience Jackson gets.

The primary reason I doubt his third cultureness, however, comes from how quickly it would disappear if we returned to the United States. He just turned four. How much do you remember from your early life? Perhaps some images, a few short moments. But not much, I'm guessing.

If we immediately repatriated back to the U.S., Jackson likely would remember almost nothing of his Scottish life. By the time he was a few years into primary school, he'd have only fleeting glimpses of his prior life. The older he got, the less he'd retain.

So far, he hasn't truly had a first culture and second culture merge. They have not amalgamated. Scottish culture has flavored and overlain his life, but it has not yet fused with his American roots and influences. He uses some British terminology — he calls a flashlight a torch, for example — but the vocabulary would disappear if he lived in the States.

At this early point of life, his Scottishness is ephemeral.

Nor will another year or two be enough. Until he's had a few years of primary school, he won't be sufficiently immersed into Scottish culture to retain any of the culture if he moved away. Toddlers, preschoolers, kindergarteners, first and second graders — these kids generally have neither the exposure nor the permanent memories to transform their expat experiences into a fused, hybrid culture. Obviously, there's no exact cut-off point for when a third culture life begins or how long it has to last, but the early childhood years don't lend themselves to a true third culture experience.

And so, I take a restrained view of third culture labels. Perhaps I'm too stingy. But while Jackson meets the definition of a third culture kid, I don't think he is one.

Not yet.

Scotland's post-referendum politics: a "tectonic shift"?

On the one hand, nothing much has changed. On the other, Scottish politics are in uncharted waters.

Last September, the people of Scotland voted in historic numbers and emphatically rejected independence from the United Kingdom. While 45% of the populace wanted independence, 55% percent of voters voted NO, we want to remain part of the U.K.

The United Kingdom still reigns supreme over Scotland, one of its four nations.

A poll from this past weekend, eight months later, shows 44% would now vote YES, 49% would vote NO, 5% are undecided, and 2% say "stop bothering me about this issue again, please go away". From that poll, you find a bit of movement but not really a "tectonic shift."

More significantly, however, the Scottish National Party (SNP) fared amazingly well in the U.K.'s parliamentary elections a few weeks ago. Although the Tories surprisingly held onto power and now control the U.K. Parliament with a majority, in Scotland the SNP won 56 of 59 seats. The other three major parties — Tories, Labour, and Liberal Democrats — each won a single seat in Scotland. This dominance in Scotland effectively stripped Labour of a large number of Scottish seats, making them unable to gain a majority in the U.K. We all assume the SNP will be a significant thorn in the side of the governing Tories for years to come.

The SNP already controls the Scottish Parliament and has a popular new leader in Nicola Sturgeon. Now it holds almost all the Scottish seats in the U.K. Parliament.

Before the independence referendum last fall, the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems promised significantly more powers for the Scottish Parliament. These promises of devolution helped turn the tide of the referendum and secure Scotland remaining in the U.K.

After the referendum David Cameron, the U.K.'s Prime Minister, set up the Scotland Devolution Commission to study the issue and make recommendations to the U.K. Parliament. The commission was led by Lord Smith of Kelvin, a self-made businessman from Glasgow made into a life peer by the Queen. Widely respected across the political parties, Lord Smith most recently served as the organizing chairman of the 2014 Commonwealth Games held in Glasgow.

In November 2014 the Smith Commission, as it has become known, issued its recommendations. In general, the recommendations include more taxing and spending powers for the Scottish Parliament; letting 16 and 17 year olds vote in Scottish elections; allowing the Scottish Parliament more power over economic decisions such as oil and gas extraction; and sundry other smaller issues. The commission also recommended that the devolution of powers include language stating that the Scottish Parliament is a permanent institution.

Most significantly, all of the political parties agreed upon the Smith Commission recommendations. Thus, the SNP signed off and agreed to these devolved powers . . . and their limits.

The Queen's Speech earlier this week — in which the Queen essentially reads the legislative plan of the governing party to Parliament — indicated the Tories will follow the Smith Commission's recommendations. They seek to devolve to the Scottish parliament power over roughly 40% of taxes and 60% of spending in Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon. (Photo courtesy of the Scottish government.)

But after their near sweep of Scottish seats in the U.K.'s parliamentary elections earlier this month, the SNP is emboldened. Claiming their strong showing in the election has "changed everything," the SNP now rumbles about how the Smith Commission should be a starting point and not an end point. Their new leader in Parliament, Angus Robertson, declared the U.K. government must "react positively to proposals for a transfer of powers beyond" the Smith Commission. According to Robertson, the Scottish electorate gave "overwhelming support in the election" to greater powers for Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon, the overall leader of the SNP and the First Minister in Scotland's parliament, declared that the U.K. parliamentary election demonstrated the "tectonic plates" of Scottish politics had shifted.

The SNP has now floated the idea of a new independence referendum in the near future. That's right, less than a year after the last referendum, they want another one. At the time of the independence referendum last fall, the SNP declared it a "once in a generation" event. Sturgeon indicates this new referendum, however, could happen as soon as 2016.

Another referendum so soon puts Scottish politics into the quandary of a "neverendum." The issue is unlikely to pass (at least according to current polls), but it lingers as significant motivation for the governing party in Scotland and its energized supporters. Almost half of Scots want independence, and those supporters are comprised primarily of the young and middle-aged; only the above-60 group votes in significant numbers against independence.

Independence is the framework which likely will color all issues, and perhaps dominate them, for many more years of Scottish politics.

Although only the U.K. government has the power to grant permission for a true referendum, the SNP says Scotland could vote on a non-binding resolution showing the will of the Scottish people. If such a resolution passed, the SNP claims the U.K. government would have to recognize Scotland's desire for independence and therefore hold a binding referendum. Again.

No matter what the U.K. government decides with regard to devolution, the SNP will find a way to be disgruntled. Scottish independence is its raison d'être. To the SNP, the current devolution is just one step toward full independence. They'd love to skip over the small steps to a big bang of independence.

It'll only happen, though, if or when the tectonic plates have shifted far enough.

Want to know more about Scottish independence?

The question of independence is the defining question of Scotland's 21st century politics. Depending on how it turns out, it may be the defining political question for the entire United Kingdom, as well. I've been on this issue since my very first post. Here's some more info:

Independence voters are . . . passionate.

http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/should-scotland-be-independent-country.html

http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-turning-point-for-scottish.html

 http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/any-bounce-for-independence.html

 http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-uk-is-poorer-than-each-of-50-us.html

http://www.coloringwithoutborders.com/2014/09/holy-sht-scottish-independence-might.html

http://www.coloringwithoutborders.com/2014/09/a-less-united-kingdom-but-still-united.html

Scotland's new drunk driving law is dampening its economic growth

Scots aren't drinking enough. They're drinking so little, in fact, that they're harming their economy.

A new drunk driving law — explained here — came into effect last December 5. Under this new law, Scotland lowered its blood alcohol content limit from 0.08 (like the rest of the U.K.) to 0.05. Men will likely meet the new BAC limit with a single pint of beer, and women with only half a pint. The new limit works effectively as a ban on driving with any alcohol in a driver's system, and can come into play even on the morning after drinking.

In lowering its BAC limit, Scotland has fallen into line with the vast majority of European nations. Scotland's penalties, however, are more severe and a bit less nuanced than many of those nations. There's no distinction made between a BAC of 0.05 and a BAC of 0.10, or 0.15, or 0.20. If you hit the 0.05 mark after a single pint, you're treated the same as someone falling down drunk.

Not surprisingly, the new limit has made people more reluctant to have a drink when they're out, whether at a pub, restaurant, sporting event, or otherwise. It certainly has reined me in from having a single pint or glass of wine on many of the occasions when we've gone out to dinner.

Undoubtedly, the new law has improved road safety. While Scottish police found a total of 434 drink-drivers (as they're called here) over Christmas and Hogmanay in 2013-14, they found just 351 during the same period this past holiday season, right after passage of the new law. That's a 19% drop from the previous year. Granted, only 20 of those 351 (i.e., 6%) actually ran afoul of the new lower BAC limit. Still, the new law had an impact.

The secondary effect of the new law, though, has been an economic sucker punch. Survey results in February of 400 alcohol-licensed establishments, including bars, restaurants, golf clubs, and hotels, found that sales decreased by 10% to as much as 60% in the first two months after the new limit's introduction.

A leading Scottish economist this week published a report stating that Scotland's economic growth has been dampened by the new drunk driving law. Relying on a purchasing managers index (PMI), the economist noted the hospitality sector had suffered a marked decrease in spending. Although employment rose, new business increased, and oil prices recovered 20% from their recent lows, those factors were held in check by the diminished spending caused by the new drunk driving law.

Without a doubt, the hospitality sector in Scotland has taken a strong hit. Scots are a people with an historically strong attachment to their alcohol, particularly whisky. A severe drop in consumption like this indicates a potentially pivotal shift, at least for public behavior.

But spending on food and drink at pubs and restaurants is, by definition, leisure spending. And economically speaking, it's unlikely that leisure spending will be suddenly converted to savings. Rather, if the Scots don't spend their money on alcohol, they're likely going to direct their spending toward some other leisure activity. The focus of their spending might shift, but the amount of economic consumption should remain roughly the same. The Scottish economy might undergo a short-term blip in spending, which may redistribute itself to other areas in the future.

I think.

All that said, I'm feeling the need to do my civic duty to help Scotland's economy. Raise a pint, throw back a dram. Might be time for a new food regimen:

                    "I'm on a whisky diet. I've lost three days already." — Tommy Cooper (British comedian)

Indeed, I'll have to drink enough for two people. Kate's driving.

Queen Elizabeth's fifth (and final?) coin portrait

Yesterday, the U.K.'s Royal Mint unveiled its fifth coin portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. Now aged 88 and in the 64th year of her reign, it has been 17 years since the Queen's last coin portrait.

What is a coin portrait? It's the picture of the monarch on all British coinage — the "head" side of the coins. Some countries, like the United States, have various people (e.g., Presidents) as the portrait on their coins, while monarchies tend to feature their king or queen. Putting a ruler's head on coins is a practice going back thousands of years. Coin experts and historians study the images on coins for clues about the reigns of rulers, propaganda uses, artistic styles, and so on. Moreover, finding a coin in an archeological dig often helps pinpoint the age of the items with which it's found.

I'm no numismatist, but I do enjoy looking at coins and paper currency for the images they employ. I peruse the currency of whatever country we're visiting. In the United Kingdom, each bank — whether the Bank of England, Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, etc. — chooses the images for the paper currency, providing a broad range of historical portraits, architecture, World Heritage sites, and sundry other subjects.

But the U.K.'s coins all feature the monarch's official image. After hearing about the announcement yesterday, I pulled some £1 coins off my dresser to see the old portrait. And then I realized there were not one, not two, but three previous coin portraits still in general circulation:

The second, third, and fourth coin portraits of Queen Elizabeth II.

Coins continue in circulation until they receive too much wear and tear. Generally, coins last 20 to 25 years. At that point, the Royal Mint withdraws the battered coins from circulation and recycles them for future coinage. Some coins, however, last longer. The coins with the Queen's second portrait were struck between 1968 and 1984, which means the leftmost coin in my hand (above) is at least 30 years old.

That second coin portrait is still the portrait used as the "definitive" (i.e., generally used) stamp for mail in the United Kingdom. On the stamps, the image is reversed/flipped from the coin portrait, and it has some other minor changes. Although the Royal Mail has tried several times to update the stamp image, the Queen herself has rejected any changes. So while she has consented to three further portraits for the coinage, she has maintained the use of the second portrait for the mail.

Given its 48 years of use in the U.K. since 1967 (slightly before introduction of the coin portrait), as well as the image's frequent use in various Commonwealth countries, the second portrait quite possibly is the most-reproduced image in the history of the world.

The coin portraits span nearly all of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, which began in 1952. The first portrait (1953) is girlish, without a crown and with her hair tied in a laurel wreath, even though she came to the throne a little before her 26th birthday. The second portrait (1968) is womanly, with a long bare neck; it was described by John Betjemen, a long-serving Poet Laureate, as "a little racy." The third portrait (1985), with the Queen aged 59, has been called "flatteringly young." The fourth portrait (1997) provides a more realistic portrayal of an aging monarch. Here are the images as provided by the Royal Mint:

First coin portrait (1953).

Second coin portrait (1968).

Third coin portrait (1985).

Fourth coin portrait (1997).

These four coin portraits, however, are not the only ones of Queen Elizabeth II. For her Diamond Jubilee, celebrating her 60th year on the throne, the Royal Mint struck a commemorative coin with not one, but two, images of the Queen. One image harked back to her first coin, while the other image presented her contemporary age. A double heads coin! (Heads, I win; tails, you lose.) These coins were not in general circulation.

Queen Elizabeth II's diamond jubilee portraits. (Image by Royal Mint)

Queen Elizabeth II's diamond jubilee coin was inspired by a medallion struck by the Royal Mint in 1897, celebrating the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria:

Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee medallion. (Image by Royal Mint)

Queen Elizabeth's official fifth coin portrait, unveiled yesterday, is the first coin portrait created entirely digitally. The new portraitist, Jody Clark, is 33 years old. He has never met the Queen. The royal palace provided specially-lit photographs for engravers to make their portraits, and the Royal Mint selected its favorite of the entries. Clark first drew an initial sketch and then, using computer software, created a low-relief model. The Queen ultimately gave her approval for the new portrait.

Clark's initial sketch. (Image by Royal Mint)

For this fifth portrait, the Mint first invited eight portraitists to submit entries, and then winnowed the pool to three finalists. Clark is the first Royal Mint engraver to have been chosen for an official coin portrait in more than 100 years. Previous portraitists had been from outside the Mint.

Clark said accuracy was his primary goal for the portrait, instead of an idealized image. Mint officials raved about the "subtlety" of the portrait's hair, and thought Clark captured some of the Queen's "glamour." He also paid homage to previous portraits, selecting the same royal diamond diadem she wore at her coronation and which appears on two previous coins. Clark did, however, want to make the Queen's image warmer and a bit less stern than previous coins. She seems to have the hint of a smile:

Queen Elizabeth II's fifth coin portrait. (Image by Royal Mint)  Note that the "J.C" on the coin is the initials of the portraitist, just as previous coins have the initials of their portraitists.

One other point of interest. Notice that in all five portraits, the Queen faces to the right. Following a tradition dating back to the 1600s, the image of a British monarch always faces in the opposite direction from the monarch who preceded him/her. Thus, her son Charles, the Prince of Wales (or, as he's called here in Scotland, the Duke of Rothesay), will have his coin portrait(s) facing to the left; his son, William, will have his facing to the right; and his son, George, to the left; and so on.

Some argue this tradition traces back to King Charles II, who reestablished the monarchy in 1660 following the Interregnum of parliamentary rule provided by Oliver Cromwell. The new king, seeking to "turn his back" on Cromwell, made his image face the opposite direction. Since then, successive monarchs have faced alternate directions from the king/queen they followed. The Royal Mint's museum suggests this explanation is too facile and says the reasons for the tradition likely have been forgotten.

Although the Royal Mint has already begun to strike the new coins, the coinage will not immediately enter circulation. First, all the coins that have the fourth portrait, but which have not yet been sent out into circulation, will be used first. Then, the newly-struck coins featuring the fifth portrait will be issued, generally to banks first.

When will the new coins make their first appearance? The Royal Mint won't say. It'll be sometime this year, probably reasonably soon.

Scotland's new drunk driving law

UPDATE: The new drunk driving law is dampening economic growth. See here:

http://www.coloringwithoutborders.com/2015/04/scotlands-new-drunk-driving-law-is.html

Not a pint.

Nor a single glass of wine.

Fuhgeddaboud a dram of whisky.

Scotland's blood alcohol concentration limit:

Starting this morning at midnight, it is illegal in Scotland to operate a vehicle if your blood alcohol concentration is higher than 0.05 (i.e., 50mg of alcohol per 50ml of blood). The rest of the U.K. will retain a 0.08 BAC.

A man who consumes only one pint of beer or glass of wine may or may not reach the 0.05 limit. His BAC will depend on several factors, including weight, age, metabolism, type of alcohol, amount of food consumed, and so on. Most men, however, will exceed the 0.05 limit with one pint of beer or glass of wine. If he drinks a craft beer with an above-average alcohol content, he'll almost certainly be over the limit.

For an average woman, the limit will be reached from half a pint of beer or a small glass of wine.

My pint last week of Westvleteren XII, consistently voted the "best beer in the world." At 10.2% alcohol by volume, it'll push you well over Scotland's 0.05 BAC limit.

The average body will clear alcohol out of its blood at a rate of 15mg to 18mg per hour. So, in theory, if you consume one pint of beer or glass of wine and then wait an hour, you should fall below the legal limit. However, lots of variation remains: the alcohol content of the drink; metabolism rates; food consumed; age (older people clear alcohol faster than younger people); etc.

The lightning-fast implementation:

Scotland's Parliament voted to lower the drunk driving limit — called the "drink-drive" limit here — on November 18. Of this year. Its implementation was today, December 5.

No yearlong preparation. No extended public notification. Simply boom!, a new limit three weeks later.

Incidentally, the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously in favor of the new law. How often do you see a unanimous vote on domestic legislation? Not very often.

Penalties for drunk driving in Scotland:

Is a glass of bubbly Prosecco worth a yearlong ban?

If you are caught driving while over the 0.05 limit, you will be banned from driving for a minimum of 12 months. No discretion in sentencing for the ban. You also will pay a fine of up to £5,000. Furthermore, you may face as much as 6 months imprisonment. And, of course, you'll get some points on your license and your car insurance will skyrocket.

Some offenders may be allowed to complete a rehabilitation course, at their own expense. Successfully completing the course can reduce the driving ban by up to one quarter.

Also, employers will see your conviction if you must produce your license for work. And, travel to some countries, including the United States, can be denied in some instances for criminal convictions.

Blood alcohol concentration limits in the rest of Europe:

The United Kingdom, with its BAC limit of 0.08, is the highest in Europe. Only Malta has a similar leniency.

Scotland has broken with the rest of the U.K. and adopted a 0.05 BAC limit, in line with most European countries. Its limit now matches Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, among others.

Lithuania has a 0.04 limit. Slovenia has a 0.024 limit. Several countries have set a 0.020 BAC limit, including Estonia, Poland, and Sweden. At that level it's almost a total ban, but allows for the possibility of alcohol from mouthwash or medication. The 0.020 limit seeks to avoid accidentally penalizing a driver with trace amounts of alcohol in his system.

Several nations, including Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, have a zero tolerance ban.

A number of countries have slightly varied limits, depending upon a few circumstances. Germany, for example, has a total ban for drivers under the age of 21 or those with less than two years of driving experience; a 0.030 limit for those involved in an accident; and a 0.050 limit for those not involved in an accident.

Checkpoints and vehicle stops:

While the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, provides some (minor) restrictions on checkpoints and vehicle stops, no such limitations exist in Scotland or the rest of the U.K. Checkpoints can be erected at any time. Any moving violation can give rise to a roadside breathalyser test, as can essentially any suspicion on the part of a police officer. In fact, the police can stop any vehicle at any time with unfettered discretion.

Gone are the days that you can drive to a restaurant, have a glass of wine with your spouse during dinner, and come home. Without question, the only legal choice is to walk, ride public transportation, or take a taxi. Or have your spouse be a designated driver, which is certainly doable but not quite as convivial.

With a population of 5.3 million, Scotland has recently averaged about 20 deaths per year from drunk driving, as well as another 90 serious injuries and 300+ minor injuries. Presumably those numbers will go down, though most offenders who caused injury were well above the previous BAC limit. Will the Scots — a populace that romanticizes its drinking — happily acquiesce to a BAC limit that functions as an almost total ban? Time will tell.

One month later: Scotland's hugely successful 5 pence charge for single-use plastic bags

We were as bad as everyone else.

Like so many, we would mindlessly accept plastic bags to carry our purchases. Whether it was a cartful of groceries or a sole pack of lightbulbs from the hardware store, most things would come home in a plastic bag. At least we got a second use out of ours, employing the bags for cleaning our cat's litterbox.

Ultimately, however, we were part of the problem.

Whether you call them plastic bags, carrier bags, or single-use bags, they now come with a 5 pence charge for each one.

Last month, however, Scotland instituted a small charge of 5 pence per plastic bag. Starting on October 20, these "single use bags" are taxed by the government in an attempt to reduce litter — a huge problem in Scotland — and stem the "throwaway culture." The government estimated that more than 800 million bags were given away just by Scottish supermarkets every year. Let that sink in.

Actually, it's not really a tax. The Scottish government requires retailers to charge at least 5 pence — they're free to charge more — for every plastic bag. The funds raised from the charge can be spent in whatever way a business chooses, but many of the leading retailers have publicly committed to giving the proceeds to charitable and environmental causes, as well as to reporting how many bags they've dispensed and how they've used the money.

And, incidentally, the ban is not just on plastic bags, and not just on brick-and-mortar retailers. Online retailers have the same charges. Paper bags are getting the same treatment, as are some plant-based material bags. There are some exceptions. Bags used to carry unpackaged food, whether for humans or animals, are exempted. Thus, the flimsy plastic bags you might use for fruits and veggies at a grocery store come with no charge. Similarly, paper bags used by pharmacists are exempt. A few other exceptions apply.

Scotland is following the lead of other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2011, Wales started charging for single-use bags, reducing usage by 75%. Northern Ireland followed suit in 2013, reducing usage by 80%. England will institute a charge in October 2015.

Italy is the gold standard, having banned single-use plastic bags entirely. Denmark is pretty darn good. It instituted a charge a decade ago, in 2003. Now, it leads Europe (other than Italy) in the lowest usage of plastic bags. Statistically, Denmark uses only four bags per person, per year. Wowza!

Last week, the EU announced a new policy for all of its member countries. European nations have three choices:

          (1) ban the single-use plastic/carrier bags;
          (2) introduce mandatory charges by 2019; or
          (3) create binding government targets to reduce use by 80% by 2025.

European statistics show that 92% — I'm not precisely sure how they got such a precise percentage — of the common plastic bags were used only once and then discarded.

So, how is Scotland doing a month or so after it instituted its 5 pence charge?

Although no official statistics have been released, large retail chains are reporting massive drops in plastic bag usage. Morrisons, a supermarket chain, reports an 80% decrease in plastic bag use. ASDA, a large retail store similar to (and owned by) Walmart, says it has seen a 90% decrease.

That means the changeover hasn't happened gradually. It has been immediate. Consumers have altered their purchasing habits at a snap of the fingers. Although the plans for the 5 pence charge met some resistance, those concerns are long gone.

Assuming the figures from Morrisons and ASDA are representative of Scotland's large retailers generally, we're looking at an immediate reduction of more than 640,000,000 plastic bags just from supermarket chains. That doesn't even take into account other retailers.

Of course, the littering problem in Scotland is much more than just plastic bags. Litter is everywhere in Scotland's urban environments. Even on wilderness treks you'll find a surprising amount of trash. It's reminiscent of America several decades ago before the nationwide anti-littering campaigns. Scotland has a long way to go on its anti-littering message.

Nonetheless, without question, the 5 pence charge has done a lot of good in a very short period of time. We'll have to wait to see the longer-term statistics, but it's hard to imagine consumers will suddenly switch back to the plastic bags. This looks like an unmitigated success.

A quick update: this year's Man Booker winner

I was right.

Although this was the first year that American authors were included for consideration to win the Man Booker Prize for Fiction, last night the judges made damn sure no 'Murican won selected an Australian novel as the winner.

Just as I predicted.

{Ed.'s note: Oooh, tough prediction there. Way to go out on a limb.}

The judges pick their winner on the same day the award is presented. Consequently, over the past few days, there have been news articles, columnists, and past winners all loudly fretting and worrying that, God forbid, an American might win. Headlines on news articles like "Neel Mukherjee tipped to prevent first American win." Columns warning against "creeping Americanisation," and noting that "on the credit side" having only two of the six shortlisted novels by Americans showed the award has not yet been swamped by "a Yankee takeover." Regurgitations of earlier articles in which past winners of the award criticized the opening of the Man Booker to Americans, and then solemnly intoning the past winners "carry considerable literary weight."

These so-called news items were not subtle. They were plainly firing shots across the bow of the judges, warning them against selecting an American winner.

Now, I should be clear, I haven't read a single one of the six shortlisted books. I have no opinion whatsoever on the merits of the various contenders. I am not at all suggesting one of the two American authors should have won. I ain't got no idea who shoulda been the winner, yo'.

I just think it's interesting how desperate -- and let me emphasize DESPERATE -- a segment of the literary world here is to simultaneously fight against the possibility that Americans might begin to dominate the award and, more importantly, fight to ensure the Brits retain their own wildly disproportionate stranglehold on the nominations and winners. Brits have won 29 of the 46 Man Booker prizes, a share that is rather out of scale to their population in relation to their Irish and Commonwealth brethren from India, Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Nigeria, among others. I'm not going to go back to count all the nominations, but the disproportionate number of Brits in nominations is even more stark.

It's hard enough for some literary Brits to stomach that their colonists have won 17 of the awards. They don't want the Americans to start siphoning away nominations and winners, too.

In the small world of literary fiction, nominations and winners are very, very important for business. For the psyche, and national pride, and personal proclivities, too. But especially for the publishing business.

But enough about all that.

This year's winner was Richard Flanagan, an Australian, for his novel The Narrow Road to the Deep North. Both a war story and a love story, the novel is set during World War II and focuses on Japanese captors and their Allied prisoners of war who built the "Death Railway" between Burma and Thailand. As the chair of the judges put it: "The best and worst of judging books is when you come across one that kicks you so hard in the stomach like this that you can't pick up the next one in the pile for a couple of days. That's what happened in the case of this book."

Richard Flanagan holds his winning book, The Narrow Road to the Deep North. (Photo by AFP/Getty)

Everything I have read about the novel is full of high praise. I'll try to set aside my 'Murican parochialism (wink wink) and go buy a copy. I'm looking forward to reading it.

A less-United Kingdom, but still united

They voted yesterday at 5,579 polling stations within 2,608 polling places, from the cities to the highlands to the islands.

They lined up at dawn; voted all day; queued into the night.

They turned out to vote in historic fashion, 84.6% of registered voters embracing their democratic moment. They participated in higher numbers than any previous vote in Scotland (80.9%) or the U.K. as a whole (84.0%).

They voted, in the end, to retain their union with Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.

The Union Jack will not lose its Scottish blue.

The United Kingdom continues. Intact.

Although it wavered and equivocated in the polls, Scotland's final decision was decisive: 55% rejected independence. In a land which reveres William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, which romantically refers to Bonnie Prince Charlie's rebellion in '45 as though it were in living memory and not from 1745, only 45% of Scots voted in favor of cutting ties with the auld enemy.

YES garnered 1,617,989 votes. But another 2,001,926 Scots pondered independence and decided NO, we don't want to create a new country. It was a once in a generation, perhaps once in a lifetime, offer of disunion from their fellow Brits. And a majority decided the anti-independence campaigners were right, we're Better Together.

A few thousand Scots took their paper with its one question and, possibly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the moment, failed to return a countable ballot. These "rejected papers" included 2,554 ballots left unmarked or void for uncertain marks; 691 ballots that marked both YES and NO; and 16 ballots which left some unacceptable mark. A final 168 voters in some way marked their ballot but were disallowed because they wrote their name or some other identifiable information -- an odd choice by a voter, but an even odder reason for rejecting an otherwise valid ballot, unless we say "stand up to be counted, but don't let us know who you are."

Of the 32 voting precincts in Scotland, only four supported independence. That included Glasgow, the largest precinct with 12 percent of Scotland's total population, at 53.49% for YES. The city's turnout, however, also was the lowest of any precinct, reaching merely 75%.

The purple-shaded areas voted NO to independence; areas shaded red voted YES.

But though it has not been dismembered, the United Kingdom is less united than ever. And it's poised for less unity going forward.

As part of their wooing during the referendum campaign, the three major U.K. parties -- Tories, Liberal Democrats, and Labour -- all pledged major devolutionary powers to Scotland's parliament. As soon as possible. Each party has its own proposal, but the differences are largely of degree and not of type. Scotland, which has always retained its own legal system, will get increased power over taxation and more power over social spending. The U.K.'s parliament likely will retain full control over issues such as defense, foreign affairs, energy, immigration, pensions, and a few other areas. All other matters -- education, housing, welfare, transportation, income taxes, and so on -- will be either wholly or substantially controlled by the Scottish parliament.

Ironically, it was the Scottish National Party and its leader, Alex Salmond, who pushed for these kinds of "devo-max" powers to be included as a third option on the independence referendum ballot. The SNP asked to have the ballot include options for YES, for NO, and for greater devolution. The parties at Westminster rejected the option for devolution, only to use promises for such devolution as a carrot (i.e., bribe) when the campaign got closely contested.

This evening, Salmond announced he will step down both as Scotland's First Minister and the head of the SNP this coming November after the SNP holds its party conference. He has led the SNP for a total of 20 years (not all consecutively), and has been Scotland's longest-serving First Minister.

This morning, basking in the glow of victory, Prime Minister David Cameron reiterated his commitment to devolution. He set out a timetable for a devolution "white paper" to be produced by this November, and draft legislation for Parliament by January 2015. Somehow, he expects all the parties to work cooperatively on the matter, even though they're all positioning themselves for the May 2015 general election. While all three major parties have pledged devolution post haste, they have incentives and disincentives to working together.

Scotland will ignite with anger if the Westminster parties fail to provide what they have promised. A fair number of NO voters rejected independence only because of the promise of further devolution. I think it's a safe bet that some significant devolution will be secured for Scotland in the relatively near future.

But Cameron also added new wrinkles to the game today. He pledged further devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland, not just Scotland. And, significantly, he said the so-called "West Lothian question" should be decided at the same time and in conjunction with the devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It's important to remember that while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have devolved governments that limit what the U.K.'s parliament can decide, England has no corresponding parliament. The U.K.'s parliament decides all English matters.

The "West Lothian question," first raised in 1977 by a Member of Parliament from the West Lothian constituency in Scotland, asks whether Scottish MPs (or Welsh or Northern Irish) should be allowed to vote on matters affecting only England. In a devolved United Kingdom, the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on all matters in the U.K.'s Parliament, including all matters affecting only England. But English MPs do not have an equivalent vote on matters controlled by devolved Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish parliaments.

Cameron wants to solve the West Lothian question, most likely by allowing only English MPs to vote on matters that affect only England. That would mean Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs would not have equal rights as MPs as their English counterparts. Not only would those Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs have no vote in their own devolved parliaments, at the same time they would have fewer votes to cast in the U.K.'s parliament.

Furthermore, if a party -- most likely Labour -- gained a majority of seats in the U.K. parliament, it might lose its voting majority if the chunk of Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs were not allowed to vote on matters. Currently and likely for the near-term, Labour has no chance at a majority in the U.K. parliament without those MPs, particularly without the consistent Labour bloc from Scotland.

Cameron's suggestion to solve the West Lothian question on the eve of the May 2015 general election is a superb political machination. As the leader of the Tories, he positions himself as the champion of the English voters, who are far and away the majority of the U.K.'s population. It puts Labour in an awkward position. If they accede to Cameron, they potentially lose the use of Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs in votes in Parliament; even if they win the May 2015 election, their power could be diminished. If they oppose Cameron and anger English voters, they may lose the May 2015 election because of it.

These devolutionary issues have been simmering for at least a century. Many think the Republic of Ireland may not have seceded from the U.K. in the 1920s if the Irish had been granted such devolution. As he did so often, Winston Churchill saw around the corner of history and predicted the U.K. would eventually move toward federalization. He foresaw the call -- perhaps the need -- for devolution. Speaking in Dundee, Scotland in October 1913, Churchill said:

               Another great reason for the settlement of the Irish question in the present Parliament and for
               disposing of the Home Rule controversy now, while we have the full opportunity presented, is
               that the ground is thereby cleared for the consideration of claims of self-government for other
               parts of the United kingdom besides Ireland. You will remember how, last year, I addressed a
               meeting in Dundee on this subject. I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking for myself. I
               made it clear that I was not speaking of the immediate future, but dealing with the subject
               which lay for the moment outside the sphere of practical politics and raising a question for
               reflection and discussion rather than for prompt action.

               I spoke of the establishment of a federal system in the United Kingdom, in which Scotland,
               Ireland and Wales, and, if necessary, parts of England, could have separate legislative and
               parliamentary institutions, enabling them to develop, in their own way, their own life according
               to their own ideas and needs in the same way as the great and prosperous States of the
               American Union and the great kingdoms and principalities and States of the German Empire.

In 1912, Churchill had proposed 10 regional parliaments: one for Scotland; one for Wales; one for Northern Ireland; and seven for regions of England. By "parliaments," Churchill apparently had in mind something similar to U.S. states. He also pointed to the federal systems of Canada and Australia.

A September 1912 political cartoon from the Liverpool Daily Courier.

Yesterday, Scotland voted to reject independence and persist in the United Kingdom. In the next few years, as a result of its referendum debate, Scotland may witness the other constituent nations of the U.K. ease into a loose federation that only nominally remains united.