At work I have limited access to the fine mesh model output of the UK MET office. For a few years it's been my favourite model in the +36 h time range with regard to position of frontal or convective cloud bands out of a variety of other models from the French, American and German services. I'm also impressed by its handling of small scale surface winds and near-surface moisture in a complex terrain here in Germany. So I felt like saying something nice about the UK MET office, and its big computer.
I would have appreciated some clarification where exactly the criticism of the maker of this thread is aiming at.
I deducted from both TAFs the basic notion, that there would be a longer rainy period ahead, sometimes with moderately reduced visibility and some low clouds, which would end about midnight utc.
From the first TAF I got the idea that some convective enhancement of the rain was expected starting at 20 utc the 23rd. There were some syntax errors included in the first TAF, provided it was quoted correctly.
I checked radar pictures on meteox.com and the relevant EGPF METARs. Shortly before the first TAF was compiled, CB clusters with strong showers were present upstream over Ireland and reached Scotland in weakened form over the day with mostly light rain and the ceiling not below 1000 ft agl, at least not for long.
A convective looking rain band reached Glasgow by 20 utc the 23rd, precisely as the first TAF had predicted 15 hours ahead. This brought the strongest rain of the day and the first TAF had timed that one very nicely.
The strong winds however didn't show up in the regular METARs. I would say that moderate rain, wind and low ceiling were somehow overpredicted by the first TAF, but that goes for most TAFs I've seen in my life.
However one would have to see the special reports of Glasgow or some real time data to judge wether some significant weather went by unrecorded in between the regular reports, e.g. if there wasn't a brief gustfront passing the airfield by about 20 utc.
So I totally fail to see yet why just this particular TAF would provoke such criticism and a new thread on PPRUNE.
--
As a sidenote, a brief period of morning fog around 5 utc the 24th seemed to have affected only parts of the aerodrome and wasn't anticipated by both TAFs.