Curious as to the reason for the UK's position, given that UK timelords have a strong track record, but this: > Britain’s argument is largely based on the desi

Curious as to the reason for the UK's position, given that UK timelords have a strong track record, but this: > Britain’s argument is largely based on the desire to keep a link between official time and Earth’s rotation, says Peter Whibberley, a metrologist at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, UK. just seems silly. Bit more from Whibberley here [1]: > There's no agreement internationally. Some countries favour ending leap second because they do cause problems. Some software in particular has great difficulty handling leap seconds. The simplest solution is simply to end them. > But other countries say it's important to maintain the traditional link between timekeeping and the Earth's rotation and arguing we should keep leap seconds until at least we understand much better the long term consequences of ending them. > Well, I'm part of the UK's delegation at this grand meeting that would discuss the issue in November of this year. So, it's my job to argue the UK's position but from a personal point of view, I don't have any stronger sympathies one way or the other. They're both very good arguments and the problem is, no compromise position. You had to keep leap seconds or you end them. Whatever happens, it's going to be very interesting. > The UK government has considered the issue and it's theory is we should maintain this traditional link between our timekeeping and the Earth's rotation. Some random googling turns up a document [2] which says: > The UK has previously consulted official bodies and agencies with an interest in precision timekeeping. None of these authorities reported significant problems arising from leap seconds, while some scientific institutions reported strong support among their memberships for retaining leap seconds. With a reference to the article 'A British perspective of the future of Coordinated Universal Time' [3], which is longer, but doesn't really contain any more substantive points in favour of leap seconds. Looking for that also led me to a more detailed presentation on the subject [4]. Hmm. [1] https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/what-are-leap-seconds https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/what-... [2] https://sciencewise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/DR-5.pdf https://sciencewise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/DR-5.p... [3] p. 51 of https://www.itu.int/bibar/ITUJournal/DocLibrary/ITU011-2013-07-en.pdf https://www.itu.int/bibar/ITUJournal/DocLibrary/ITU011-2013-... [4] https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/oth/0a/0e/R0A0E0000960014PDFE.pdf https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/oth/0a/0e/R0A0E0000960014P...